From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 00:12:51 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:12:51 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermionekitten9" wrote: > bboy_mn wrote > >In summary, one way or another, directly or indirectly, I see a > >battle between Draco and Harry that ends with Harry getting control > >of the Black Family Estate. > Kitten: > > ... If Harry were to be the one to inherit the > old house would that deactivate the ancient charm that Dumbledore > placed on Harry to protect him? ... as long as Harry lives where his > mother blood dwells Voldemort can't hurt him. So would inheriting > the Sirius' house break that? > bboy_mn: I don't think it would matter, although I admit, I'm just speculating. Regardless of how much property, how much gold, or how many houses Harry owns, Petunia is still Harry's only blood relative, and she is a very very close blood relative. So as long as Harry called Petumia's house his home and returned to live there at least part of the year, then the protection continues. At this stage, even if Harry owns the house at Grimauld Place, he wouldn't be allowed to live there on his own. At least, not until his 7th year, at which time he will be 17 and of legal age in the wizard world. Even then I'm sure those around him would greatly discourage him from living there until the Voldemort problem had been resolved. > Kitten concludeds: > > Kitten, who would preferably have Draco have the house then Harry, > no particular reason just think it would be more interesting. bboy_mn: I agree that house at Grimauld Place is much more suited to Draco's personality, but if Draco gets the house, then the Order loses a headquarters. I have considered an alternate resolution to the Black Estate in which several people are given a share. Perhaps the court that rules on the Draco-Heir/Harry-Last_Will_&_Testiment dispute will find that they equally have a claim to the estate and divide it equally between them. Any other claims to the estate, like other people named in the Will would get a proportional share of Harry's half of the estate. That would leave someone with a small pile of gold and a house, and the other with a large pile of gold. The question now is, give that circumstance, would Harry choose all gold, or would he take the house so the Order could continue to use it. I suppose the Order could always move their headquarters to the Shrieking Shack or the Hogsmeade cave in the mountain, or to some other yet unknown location. Just curious, what do you think will happen to the 10,000 galleons reward for the capture of the escaped Death Eaters?? That would be a nice pile of gold in every one's pocket. I'm sure Ron would be happy. For reference, G10,000 is about $75,000 (50,000 Br. Pounds). Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From siskiou at msn.com Thu Jan 1 01:06:28 2004 From: siskiou at msn.com (Susanne) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:06:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <388514768.20031231170628@msn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87886 Hi, Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 2:22:06 PM, Suzanne wrote: > but did Snape > expect > him to remember everything in *One Thousand Magical Herbs and > Fungi?* > You seem to be a victim of binary thinking, dividing the class into > "dummies" and "smart arses". In life actually, there's a huge > middle group, > neither dummy nor smart arse, who are wonderfully diverse, average > people. Right! I suspect Hermione has the huge benefit of having a photographic memory, making it possible to remember things word for word after just one reading (or listening, meaning the speech she could repeat after quite some time in OoP, by Umbridge, I think). I do think Snape was just trying to antagonize Harry with his questioning. Otherwise he would have been happy to have a student who read and remembered the book, instead of putting Hermione down, is that was what he truly expected of his new pupils. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at msn.com Visit our two pet bunnies: http://home.earthlink.net/~siskiou/ From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 01:59:28 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:59:28 -0000 Subject: Whoa Nelly! Lots of Snape, was Harry in NEWT Potions Class? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87887 Clio: > > So it boils down to this: either Ddore agreed about the end of the > > occlumency lessons, or Sirius is a lousy godfather. Alla: > > Nope, there is a third possibility. As I said Dumbledore may have > learned about it too late and had no time to force Harry to continue > or as I said not to know about it at all till the end. I think Clio's point was that since Snape was not the only adult who knew of (a) the end of the lessons and (b) their importance to the whole Effort, that they did not resume cannot be laid with any certainty at any one door. Blame could be shared among Snape, Remus, and Sirius, IF Dumbledore didn't know. It can be spread to Dumbledore, IF he did know. It's not just a Snape/Dumbledore equation. ~Amanda > > > Alla From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 1 02:10:39 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:10:39 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: round up the usual suspects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87888 jotwo2003 wrote: > Ludo Bagman - he passed secrets to Voldemort, but claimed he thathe > thought he was collecting information for the good side. He passed > the information to Rookwood. Could this have included the prophecy? > Bagman was a dodgy character and we've seen him in a pub before, > although this was The Three Broomsticks. On the other hand > Dumbledore says that the eavesdropper could not inform his master > about the second half of the prophecy, which suggests that Voldemort was told directly, rather than indirectly, which means the > eavesdropper has to be a Death Eater, whereas IMHO Bagman was just a dim sports hero. Berit replies: Can we be positively sure Ludo Bagman is just a dim sports hero and never was a Death Eater? His childishness and wide, innocent eyes may be deceptive... Maybe he's as good an actor as Quirrel was? Many Death Eaters, like Lucius Malfoy, claimed they had been under the influence of the Imperius curse and therefore not responsible for their actions. Bagman the dodgy character might not be as innocent as he is trying to make us believe. Also, it's quite fishy he is currently on the run; maybe not only from goblins, but also from Voldemort? Berit From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 1 02:30:31 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:30:31 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87889 Kneasy wrote: > The implication is that between buying his books and getting to > Hogwarts Harry showed insufficient interest or enthusiasm to open > books which would have given him insight into a whole new world. > Could you have left them unread? Berit replies: Would just like to point out that Harry didn't leave his books unread: Quote: "'Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming, eh, Potter?' Harry forced himself to keep looking straight into those cold eyes. He HAD looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect him to remember everything in 'One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi'?" (PS p. 102 UK Ed). Berit From jakejensen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 02:42:33 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:42:33 -0000 Subject: Deathday for Sirius Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87890 Hello all, In CoS we are given a glimpse of a deathday party (for Nearly Headless Nick). One unusual feature about the deathday party that is mentioned more than once is that there are strange black candles which emit bright blue light: Candles are first mentioned here.... "The passageway leading to Nearly Headless Nick's partyhad been lined with candles, too, though the effect was far from cheeful: These were ong, thin, jet-black tapers, all burning bright blue, casting a dim, ghostly light even over thier own living faces" (CoS, US edition, p. 131). ...and then again... "A chandelier overhead blazed midnight-blue with a thousand more black candles" (CoS, US edition, p. 132). I was reading CoS last night, came to this moment in the book, and just happened to look up at OoTP sitting on my bookshelf. The US edition, for those who don't know, is covered in candles emiting strange blue light. Then I thought, "technically OoTP is about S. Black's deathday." In addition, the book ends with HP confronting Nearly Headless Nick about the possibility of Sirius returning. Questions: Is there an actual connection between these things or is it just a coincidence? Could JKR be forshadowing SB return as a ghost? Jake From jakejensen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 03:05:55 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:05:55 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87891 I just read Pippin's excellent breakdown of all the "Snape is a vampire" hints in the books. I noticed that he missed one. In CoS, Snape takes Harry and Ron down to his office (after they crash the car). Rowling notes that it is very cold (in fact, Harry and Ron are literally shivering it is so cold) in the basement and that, strangely enough, Snape's fireplace was "dark and empty" (CoS, p. 78). Snape does not bother to light the fireplace or even mention it. Then, when McGonagall enters, "She raised her wand the moment she entered; Harry and Ron both flinched, but she merely pointed it at the empty fireplace, where flames suddenly errupted" (CoS, p80). This suggests Snape may be a vampire because he seems indifferent to the ice cold temp. of his office. Indeed, it suggests that Snape's office is kept cold and that McGonagall knows this (first instinct is to light the fireplace). McGonagall doesn't even mention it, she just acts. It becomes even more telling when you consider where Sir Headless Nick has his deathday party (in the basement) and that the party is very cold (suggesting that non-living entities don't care). Jake From arrafah at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 02:33:30 2004 From: arrafah at hotmail.com (khatimhamidon) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:33:30 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87892 > > Kitten concludeds: > > > > Kitten, who would preferably have Draco have the house then Harry, > > no particular reason just think it would be more interesting. > > bboy_mn: > > I agree that house at Grimauld Place is much more suited to Draco's > personality, but if Draco gets the house, then the Order loses a > headquarters. now me, singapotter. i was wondering why would DRACO inherit the house, instead of his father, LUCIUS? Lucius is a nearer heir to the Blacks rather than DRACO, who's already one generation away, don't you think? Is there something in the canon which says the Malfoys may have a share in the inheritance? I must have missed it. Thanks. From thren at subreality.com Thu Jan 1 03:28:13 2004 From: thren at subreality.com (Thren) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:28:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] No fire in the office In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF393CD.4070307@subreality.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87893 jakedjensen wrote: >This suggests Snape may be a vampire because he seems indifferent to >the ice cold temp. of his office. Indeed, it suggests that Snape's >office is kept cold and that McGonagall knows this (first instinct is >to light the fireplace). McGonagall doesn't even mention it, she >just acts. > >It becomes even more telling when you consider where Sir Headless >Nick has his deathday party (in the basement) and that the party is >very cold (suggesting that non-living entities don't care). > Thren: What it suggests to me is that he hasn't been in his office lately, and that he probably wants to keep Harry and Ron as uncomfortable as possible. Because that's the kind of guy he is. I always took McGongall's starting a fire as just a matter-of-fact way of dealing with the situation. She wouldn't say anything about it because to do so *in front of the students* would undermine his authority as a teacher, and that would be bad. Presenting a united front, and all that. It's the same reason Dumbledore (and Lupin, I think) correct Harry when he refers to Snape as Snape (without the title)- to let him get away with it in front of a teacher would send a message that it was okay to call him Snape without any sort of respect for the place that he holds. I'm sure they all know students do it anyway, but to sanction it 'officially' would be bad. And it's cold at the deathday party not only because it's in the dungeons, but because of all the ghosts in attendance. Harry mentions it getting colder as they get nearer the room the party is in. Traditionally the chief marker announcing the presence of ghosts or other spirits (poltergeists, etc..) is that the area gets unnaturally cold. I'm certain that they don't care it's cold, but being in the dungeon isn't the *only* reason it's cold. Thren, who wonders if it ever crossed anyone's mind that Snape just *likes* it down there, or that he might *have* to be down there because of the proximity to the Slytherin common room (heads of House tend to be near their House's common room). From jakejensen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 04:33:28 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 04:33:28 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF393CD.4070307@subreality.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87894 > Thren wrote: > > What it suggests to me is that he hasn't been in his office lately This seems unlikely. To those out there who do not rely on fire as a primary source of heat, this may seem logical. However, fires are kept going even when one is not around (when it is cold) even if it is just leaving the embers going. The fact that there were no embers or anything in the fire is a sign that Snape simply does not (or has not recently) use the fire. Also, if Snape is not undead and he is just trying to punish Harry and Ron then he is punishing himself as well. Jake From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 05:32:51 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:32:51 -0000 Subject: Deathday for Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87895 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: snipping > Questions: > Is there an actual connection between these things or is it just a > coincidence? Could JKR be forshadowing SB return as a ghost? > > Jake Well, there has been speculation about that (and I know that I am not the only one who almost wanted it to happen) but IMO, Sirius is/was not the type of man to choose the half life that being a ghost is, according to Nearly Headless Nick. Nick seemed to imply that a fear of death was what kept him from crossing over, and Siruis, who marched into battle against DE's, seemingly did not have that fear. As to the black and blue candles, I think they were just a way to show off an eerie atmosphere, and it is said that the MoM studies death, so perhaps that is where the connection lies. Meri From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 05:47:56 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:47:56 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khatimhamidon" wrote: > > > Kitten concludeds: > > > > > > Kitten, who would preferably have Draco have the house then > > >Harry, . > > > > bboy_mn: > > > > I agree that house at Grimauld Place is much more suited to > > Draco's personality, but if Draco gets the house, then the Order > > loses a headquarters. > > now me, singapotter. > > i was wondering why would DRACO inherit the house, instead of his > father, LUCIUS? Lucius is a nearer heir to the Blacks rather than > DRACO, who's already one generation away, don't you think? > > Is there something in the canon which says the Malfoys may have a > share in the inheritance? I must have missed it. > > Thanks. bboy_mn: The Black Estate can't go to Lucius because Lucius doesn't have any of the Black Family blood line in him. Draco on the other hand is a combination of a Black and a Malfoy, and of all the people who are spoken of on the Black Family Tapestry, he is the only living male. (or at least the only one that I can remember) That makes Draco the oldest living male with Black blood in him. In Europe, it is very common for the entire estate to go to the oldest living 'blood' male, that prevents the family fortune from being diluted with each successive death and inheritance. If I remember correctly, there are three living female first cousins who shared the Black blood line and family name (prior to their marriages). Under normal inheritance laws, they could have some claim to the estate since they are close blood relatives. Under those same laws, a legal Will could override blood relationship. This is more like the laws in the USA, but I'm under the impression that the 'Male Heir' system is historically more common in Britian. As to the wizard world, we don't know exactly how it typically works, so the best we can do is draw models for likely muggle systems of inheritance. My suggestion of Harry and Draco sharing the inheritance was just speculation on a possible outcome. That would actually be a very unusual and uncommon end result. If you read some of the older threads I suggested, you will find comments from people who are far more familiar with British and European inheritance traditions and customs than I am. In fact, it was one of their comments that made me aware that Draco was indeed the most likely heir to the Black estate. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 06:12:32 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 06:12:32 -0000 Subject: FILK: Coughing Fake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87897 Coughing Fake (OOP, Chap. 28) To the tune of Coffee Break from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying Dedicated to Diana THE SCENE: Gryffindor Commons. Several Gryffindors plot the demise of one Dolores Jane Umbridge. DEAN (spoken) There's that coughing LEE (spoken) That coughing GINNY (spoken) That coughing RON (spoken) That coughing HARRY: That coughing! HERMIONE: That coughing! ALL: Agggghhhhhh! FRED (music): If we can't break That coughing fake, That coughing fake, That coughing fake... If we can't break That coughing fake, We are unfit to Wheeze. FRED & GEORGE: We'll cry that we're unfit to Wheeze GEORGE: If we can't do Our humble bit For Dumbledore Before we quit, And make Phase One A mega-hit We are unfit to Wheeze CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: They'll cry that they are unfit to Wheeze! (severally) That coughing! That coughing! That coughing! That coughing! (What!) That coughing! (Ahhh!) That coughing! That coughing! (No!) FRED: These fireworks Will have to be incandescent. You'll see them blaze As we romp GEORGE: The corridor Doesn't have to remain solid, With the right prompt, it's a swamp. By using our magical subjects With all due pomp. CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: You will stomp! (GINNY adds her patented Umbridge impersonation in the background) CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS & (GINNY): We must attack That coughing hack (HEM HEM!), That coughing hack (HEM HEM!), That coughing hack (HEM HEM!), We must attack (HEM HEM!), That coughing hack (HEM HEM!),... FRED & GEORGE: We'll employ all our expertise! CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: Yes, they'll employ all their expertise! (As the instrumental bridge begins, segue to the first floor corridor. FRED & GEORGE unleash their pyrotechnics, as Umbridge and Filch make increasingly desperate and ineffective attempts to arrest the chaos) CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Coughing! Ahh! GEORGE: If we can't break That coughing fake. FRED: We've the backbone of cottage cheese CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: Coughing, coughing... GEORGE: We have some cowardly disease. CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: Coughing, coughing... FRED & GEORGE: Coughing is going to... FRED, GEORGE & CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS (right fists raised in the air, as fireworks flare behind them) Coughing we'll not appease! Coughing we'll not appease! Coughing we'll not appease! Coughing is going to Cease! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 1/1/04 with 47 new filks, two new musicals, one new Beatles album, and a bunch of brand-new pictures) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 06:16:56 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 06:16:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black Estate - Additional Point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87898 I was just reading over some of the old Black Estate inheritance threads and came across one very good point for us all to remember when discussing this. There are TWO estates in question; the Black Family Estate and Sirius Black's personal estate. Sirius Black seems to have money and property of his own that are unrelated to the Black Family inheritance. Sirius inherited money from his uncle and appears to have his own bank vault filled with gold. He seems to have accumulated this property on his own while he was estranged from his family, so I assume others in the Black family have less claim to those personal asset than they do to the Black Historical Family assets. In a dispute between Draco and Harry over the Black estate, it's possible that Harry. as godson, would qualify to inherit Sirius's personal estate, and Draco as oldest living blood male would inherit the Black Family Estate. Note that Sirius's uncle DID Will him some gold, so Wills do have some precedence in the wizard world. Although we must acknowledge that we have NO information on the circumstances surrounding that inheritance. Just thought I would add that point to the mix. bboy_mn From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 1 11:54:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:54:25 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87899 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: Kneasy: > > The implication is that between buying his books and getting to > > Hogwarts Harry showed insufficient interest or enthusiasm to open > > books which would have given him insight into a whole new world. > > Could you have left them unread? > Suzanne: > I'm not sure what HP and the SS/PS you read, but in the edition I read (UK > Adult paperback, p. 102) is this paragraph: > > Harry forced himself to keep looking straight into those cold eyes. He > *had* looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect > him to remember everything in *One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi? * > > You seem to be a victim of binary thinking, dividing the class into > "dummies" and "smart arses". In life actually, there's a huge middle group, > neither dummy nor smart arse, who are wonderfully diverse, average people. Geoff: I wonder whether friend Kneasy was concentrating too much on the approach of the New Year to be fair here.... His milk of human kindness jug definitely seems a bit in need of a refill. I went through a number of occasions when I would have to obtain books prior to a course or something similar. Unless you are given a specific chunk to study, you can only leaf through the book, look at bits which catch your attention, browse.... Please note, Harry found "his school books were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night." (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters" UK edition p.67). In that time, he should obviously have been very careful to find out about powdered root of asphodel and its effect in combination with an infusion of wormwood; he should be fully aware of the properties of a bezoar; he really ought to know the difference between monkshood and wolfsbane, oughtn't he? After all, he is the new - celebrity. HNY to everyone. Geoff From clio44a at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 12:29:55 2004 From: clio44a at yahoo.com (clio44a) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:29:55 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: round up the usual suspects ...and one unusual In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87900 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" wrote: > Although I bet we won't find out until book 7, I thought it might be > useful to list all the characters who may be the eavesdropper who > overheard the prophecy, and why. > [snip] > Any other suspects people want to add? > > JoTwo Actually, yes, but I think a deeper view into the circumstances of the eavesdropping are in order. IMHO the key to the eavesdropper might be that 'the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." (OoP, Brit. Ed., p743). Why do you get thrown out of a pub? I only can come up with 4 things: (1)You are behaving inappropriately, (2)you are banned, (3)you are a minor, (4)or you belong to a group which is routinely not served there (e.g. house-elves, goblins, vampires ...) (1)Since the Hog's Head is a very dodgy place I can hardly imagine that listening to a conversation is viewed as offensive behavior. But then the conversation between Ddore and Trelawney takes place in an upstairs room, which is more or less private. Who knows, maybe the barkeep doesn't like people sneaking around his rooms? Maybe he thought Ddore and Trelwaney wanted to 'discuss something in private'. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* Ahem, well. More or less everyone could fall in this category of eavesdroppers. (2)Being banned is a different matter. A banned person hanging around in the bar would indeed result in a very angry barkeep throwing him out. We only know of Mundungus Fletcher being banned from the Hog's Head so far. That makes him a very likely candidate. On the other hand Ddore says 'he could not warn his master' (p743), which strongly suggests that person was loyal to Voldemort. Although Mundungus is a bit of a criminal, I cannot imagine him as DE. And the spot of 'reformed Death Eater' is already filled in the Order. There might be more dubious characters, but I can't think of anymore right now. Aberforth Ddore? No. (3)Students are not generally banned from the Hog's Head, as we can see at the first DA meeting. No reason to be thrown out here, unless it was after the school's curfew. No wait a minute! IIRC, Students are only allowed in Hogsmeade on certain days, during daytime. DDore says he met Trelwaney 'on a cold wet night sixteen years ago' (p740). If we assume now, that it was a student, who overheard the prophecy, who could that be? Were the Marauders et al. still at school 16 years ago? I think not. What about Regulus Black? He was younger than Sirius. Plus he was a Death Eater and would warn his 'master'. The only other person that comes to my mind is Barty Crouch jr., who was most likely still in school 16 years before OooP. Do we know how old Ludo Bagman is? I always imagined him well in his forties, but that is only my imagination. (Maybe the barkeep was not a supporter of Bagman's team, and that is why he threw him out?) :) (4)The Hog's Head sure is a dodgy place, but maybe they harbor prejudices against other magical beings there and would throw them out on sight. Besides Hagrid, a few centaurs and Remus I can't come up with anyone we know that would fall into that category. None of them is very likely to serve Voldy, especially since Ddore seems to know that person. A house-elves seems to be a very likely candidate. Some people, maybe also the Hog's Head barkeep, don't like them very much. I can imagine a house-elf being literally thrown out of the pub. that would also explain the 'he could not warn his master' (p743) line. Maybe the 'master' refers not to Voldy, but to the 'master' of a house-elf. The house-elf of a Death Eater perhaps? I can only come up with Dobby and Winky. Mmh, Dobby seeking redemtion for old wrongs by warning Harry in COS? Well, Severus Snape is always a suspect, but I can hardly imagine why he would be thrown out of the pub. And sneaking around is his specialty. He wouldn't let himself being caught. If he of course was notorious for barfights in his youth ... So my most likely suspects are: Some unnamed house-elf and Regulus Black. Ddore would have an excellent reason not to name any of them to Harry. Harry already hates Kreacher, and the mention of a Black would probabely send Harry into hysterics after Sirius has just died. I am farily sure Ddore knows who was the eavesdropper, either from whoever threw him out that night, or from his DE intelligence source. After rereading my post I must say my prime suspect is Regulus Black. It just all fits. He probably was still in school at the time of the prophecy and therefore not allowed in Hogsmeade at nights. He was a follower of the Dark Lord and would have passed the information to him. This also would assign a function to a yet not used character. And we know people mentioned in passing can become important. BTW, the Fidelius switch makes more sense this way. If Sirius brother was involved in all this prophecy and killing the Potters stuff, it could be that Sirius and the Potters became afraid he had some connection to Sirius and they swapped the Secret Keeper. I mean, blood bonds play a certain role in the HP universe. ... have to crawl somewhere and think about Regulus ... Clio, who is amazed what her alcohol addled brain can come up with an New Year's morning. Should drink more frequently. ; ) Happy New Year! From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 12:53:40 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:53:40 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87901 tailisman wrote: You might also notice that, in PoA, where M.O.M Law Enforcement could have been a problem, i.e. if Snape pressed charges for being injured by HRH's spells, he instead absolves them. He tells Fudge, "They weren't responsible for their actions." (PoA 386) But when it comes to severe academic punishment for interference, where only Dumbledore has the power (so there is no danger of that power being exercised), he argues they should "be suspended--at the very least." (387) Also: Just as stuttering Quirrell presented a facade that was 180 degrees in opposition to the ruthless Lord Voldemort, the side of Snape we have not yet fully glimpsed will belie the petty cruelties so many readers hold against him. vmonte responds: First of all Snape is one of my favorite character's in the book. I have nothing against him, in fact, I wouldn't mind if he was the true villian, rather than Voldemort. I would love it if he was toying with both the DE and the OOTP--negatively influencing them to self destruct. I do think you are right that Snape covered for the children in POA, but maybe it was because he did not want to go over Dumdledore's head (DD being his boss and all). I'm sure that in private, he probably did tell Dumbledore that the children were not under a spell. Snape really loses emotional control at the end of POA. I feel that we truly get a glimpse of Snape for the first time here. I also wonder why Lupin saw Peter in the Map, but not Snape--or did he? When did Snape go back (as a double agent) to work for Voldemort anyway? Is it possible that the prohecy thought to be about Peter's return to the Dark Lord is really about Snape? Snape really seems to have had it with DD and everyone at the end of POA. I find it laughable that Peter could ever help anyone rise back to power. Snape on the other hand... From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 11:45:34 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:45:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black Estate - Additional Point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87902 bboy_mn wrote: Sirius Black seems to have money and property of his own that are unrelated to the Black Family inheritance. Sirius inherited money from his uncle and appears to have his own bank vault filled with gold. He seems to have accumulated this property on his own while he was estranged from his family, so I assume others in the Black family have less claim to those personal asset than they do to the Black Historical Family assets. vmonte responds: It would be nice if Sirius left some money to the Weasley family. vmonte From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 14:44:47 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:44:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Filch: what's in a name? References: Message-ID: <003601c3d075$ce0ff850$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 87903 JoTwo said: >Filch verb. to pilfer, to steal (something of small value). >That's my dictionary's definition. If names have hidden meanings then what implications does this have for Argus, the caretaker? Does anyone have any ideas about what he could steal? What role will he play in books 6 and 7? Discuss. Joj says: I've always thought Filch will play a bigger role in the series. I actually thought he would in book 5, but obviously was wrong there. I think he's such an interesting character. He's fleshed out just a little too much, IMO, to not play a significant role later. He's a squib, but it's not common knowledge. You would think that students would catch on eventually, though. Maybe they do. Harry and Ron found out he was a squib by accident. I know there was a plot reason in CoS for Harry to find out that way, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. No one else knows he's taking a magic by mail course. The students seem scared of Filch, and even of Mrs. Norris to an extent. He is also activley trying to learn magic. I think he's the person JKR is talking about that will use magic later in life. The question is, will he do it for good or bad? I suspect good. Maybe it will have somehting to do with Peeves? Who knows? Joj [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 14:53:46 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:53:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: <1072820603.31828.95868.m18@yahoogroups.com> <000d01c3cfd5$356e2360$644e6751@f3b7j4> Message-ID: <003e01c3d077$0ee489d0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 87904 Devin asked: >defenseless proto-James). And what short of hate (or at least mild >loathing) would prompt a man to embarass an 11-year-old by asking him >questions he can't possibly know the answers to in one of his first >classes ever? I'm sorry, I can't possibly ever think of that as the Ffred answered: Just a minor point, I'm sure, but _Hermione_ knew the answers to the questions, because she'd done the reading. So there's no absolute reason why Harry couldn't have known them. Snape was certainly setting out to be nasty, but also making the point that it's not just talent that's important, it's learning too (a good message for any novice wizard, in my opinion!) Joj adds: I think that's reaching a little. Hermione is not typical, in that way, by any means. Snape also was not asking basic questions. They sounded like final exam questions to me. I don't think he thought for a moment Harry might know the answers. He just wanted to knock him down a peg, right from the beginning. To show him who's boss. To show everyone else, the Famous Harry Potter doesn't walk on water. Joj [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jwcpgh at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 14:58:54 2004 From: jwcpgh at yahoo.com (jwcpgh) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:58:54 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87905 Kneasy: [snip]Snape was probably getting the answer to an important question - "Right, who's a dummy and who's a smart-arse?" He got the answer first try. > Geoff: > I wonder whether friend Kneasy was concentrating too much on the > approach of the New Year to be fair here.... His milk of human > kindness jug definitely seems a bit in need of a refill. > > I went through a number of occasions when I would have to obtain > books prior to a course or something similar. Unless you are given a specific chunk to study, you can only leaf through the book, look at bits which catch your attention, browse.... > > Please note, Harry found "his school books were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night." (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters" UK edition p.67). Laura: I have no doubt that Snape was engaging in a multilayered head game with the first years. He was establishing his authority and letting the students know what the environment (for want of a better term) of his classroom would be. He was trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, albeit in a very clumsy way. Any teacher who thinks that kids will perform all year the way they appear to do on the first day is either incompetent or inexperienced. But I wouldn't be surprised if Snape subjected all his first year classes to a similar experience-except the Slytherins, of course. And I do think he was letting everyone know where Harry stood in his estimation. Whether that was due to genuine dislike, the exigencies of the spying game or both, it served its purpose. If Harry had been able to answer the questions, Snape would just have kept at him until there was one he couldn't answer. The point wasn't for Snape to see how much Harry knew. It was to let the world know what Snape thought of Harry. You do have to wonder what kind of student responses would have satisfied Snape. He didn't like it when kids didn't know the answers, nor did he like it when they did. Granted, Hermione could be a bit of a know-it-all, but to paraphrase Harry suring that first Potions lesson, why ask the questions if you don't want the answers? Laura, suspecting that Kneasy would fall into the latter of his two student categories and that Snape wouldn't like him any the better for it... From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 16:20:25 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:20:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <001201c3d083$2a199a40$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 87906 > vmonte wrote: > 1. I wonder why Snape removed his thoughts in front of Harry? D. wrote: >Lacking imagination and contradicting the spirit of this group, I believed in the most simple: the book is written from Harry's POV. If Harry don't see it, we readers wouldn't have seen it. To write Snape taken out the memories in front of Harry would be the most straightfoward way to inform readers of other characters' actions . If Snape have taken out his memories in private, locked it safely in the cupboard, thus Harry (and readers) wouldn't have known about Snape using the pensieve at all...now there will be NO story at all will it? Joj says: Not necessarily. Snape could have done all that "off camera" and then been called out of the room the same way. Harry could then have walked over to collect his things and seen the pensive. He knows what it is, and so the story could continue from there the same as it did. Harry wants some answers, and there's his chance. Snape wouldn't have needed to hide the pensive well, because I'm sure he never thought he'd leave Harry in there alone. JKR made such a point of pointing out that he always removed 3 memories (reinforcing) that I'm sure these other two instances from his past will be revealed, not necessarily in memory form. Joj [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 16:25:28 2004 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:25:28 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jwcpgh" Laura wrote: > I do think he [Snape]was letting everyone know where Harry stood in his estimation. Whether that was due to genuine dislike, the exigencies of the spying game or both, it served its purpose. If Harry had been able to answer the questions, Snape would just have kept at him until there was one he couldn't answer. Talisman, dropping by and plunking a stack of golden Galleons on the counter, I don't agree that humiliation was the primary goal. If anyone is up for a wager, I'm betting that knowledge of the Draught of Living Death; the use of the bezoar as a poison antidote; and, the ability to identify Wolfsbane, by any other name (SS 138); will become critical to Harry before the final denouement. Instead of being dependent on Hermione's notes, Harry will have vivid recall of this information--just when he needs it--thanks to this stressful little scene. Some of my considerations are: my overall assessment of Snape's motives; my hunch that some strategic death-faking could come in handy; the probability that the Malfoy's haven't sold all of those "embarrassing" poisons they stash in their secret chamber(CoS 51), and the fact that there are werewolves about--whether you expect to use Aconite in the fight against ESE ones(that's for Pippin), or recognize it in order to keep the nice ones safe. Not essential, but icing on the cake, is the dreaded Movie Contamination of the Potion Master scene in SS. You probably remember that JKR told us she gave Rickman inside info so he would know how to play his character. Well, in the movie, Snape pulls a chair up to Harry's desk, sits down in it, and locks Harry in an occular half-nelson, while downloading all the pertinent information in a rather earnest and intense manner. Yep, I'm betting there was a method to that nastiness. Talisman, Looking for takers--unless your name is Bagman or you're carrying Leprechaun gold. From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 16:26:54 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:26:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Worst Memory References: Message-ID: <001801c3d084$1172c2e0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 87908 Constance said: These memories are SO sensitive that Dumbledore was willing to offer the use of his pensieve to protect them. I think Snape just took the opportunity to add his greatest humiliation to the pot while he had the chance. Joj says: I think Snape was making excuses to Dumbledore, why he shouldn't teach Harry Occlumency. What if Harry accidentaly reversed the spell (like he did) and saw things he shouldn't see? Dumbledore then presented a solution (the pensive), and alas, poor Severus' excuse was gone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jwcpgh at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 17:16:26 2004 From: jwcpgh at yahoo.com (jwcpgh) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:16:26 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87909 Laura wrote: > > > I do think he [Snape]was letting everyone know where Harry stood > in his estimation. Whether that was due to genuine dislike, the > exigencies of the spying game or both, it served its purpose. If > Harry had been able to answer the questions, Snape would just have > kept at him until there was one he couldn't answer. > > Talisman, dropping by and plunking a stack of golden Galleons on counter, > > I don't agree that humiliation was the primary goal. > > If anyone is up for a wager, I'm betting that knowledge of the > Draught of Living Death; the use of the bezoar as a poison antidote; and, the ability to identify Wolfsbane, by any other name (SS 138); will become critical to Harry before the final denouement. Laura responds: I don't think humiliation was the primary goal either-it was just a nice little side benefit to a task Snape had agreed to take on. He always does his duty and gets the results he intends; whether he follows the spirit of the instructions is another matter. DD didn't say Snape couldn't use his own methods to get the job done, after all. You could very well be right about Harry needing that information before the end. If Harry owes his life to Snape's instruction, he'd have a hard time living with that. So would Snape, I imagine. Laura, who is always willing to make a wager-as long as it's for a hot fudge sundae *g* From paulag5777 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 18:16:39 2004 From: paulag5777 at yahoo.com (Paula Gaon) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:16:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion Message-ID: <20040101181639.26946.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87910 1Jan04 bboy_mn wrote: I agree that house at Grimauld Place is much more suited to Draco's personality, but if Draco gets the house, then the Order loses a headquarters. Paula now: Exactly. This is why I imagine Harry getting Grimauld. He is after Sirius' legal ward and after all the work that the Order has done fixing the place up, surely JKR won't let them lose it, IMHO. It also occurs to me that Harry's inheriting Grimauld would be a great plot device for the coming books. He'd live in the Order's Headquarters, plus with his new found talent for teaching/faciliting spells against the Dark Arts, we'd have a perfect setup for a real "Anti-Voldemort Center". What do you think? ~Paula Gaon Please visit Beautiful and Fun Things: http://www.cafeshops.com/bft/216705 "...Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doliesl at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 18:52:53 2004 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:52:53 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: <001201c3d083$2a199a40$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87911 >> Joj says: > Not necessarily. Snape could have done all that "off camera" and then been called out of the room the same way. Harry could then have walked over to collect his things and seen the pensive. He knows what it is, and so the story could continue from there the same as it did. Harry wants some answers, and there's his chance. Snape wouldn't have needed to hide the pensive well, because I'm sure he never thought he'd leave Harry in there alone. > > JKR made such a point of pointing out that he always removed 3 memories (reinforcing) that I'm sure these other two instances from his past will be revealed, not necessarily in memory form. D: I agree about 3 memories could mean something later, but that's exactly WHY JKR written the way she write. If the action is done "off camera" then we wouldn't know Snape removed 3 memories do we (or remove any memories at all)? The example you gave would only makes Harry even more wrong in this whole situation. The argument here is that the act of placing them in front of Harry suggest Snape deliberately WANTS to trap Harry, which I disagree. Because then his anger would not make bit of sense at all (unless it's all an act, which hardly convince me; his embarassment and ignoring Harry later seems genuine and very in-character for him). I argue it's written this way because JKR needs to show readers/Harry very clearly what Snape's doing for plot-device ssake. Simple as that. D. From daisers at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 18:54:40 2004 From: daisers at hotmail.com (Daisy Porter) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:54:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The eavesdropper: round up the usual suspects ...and one unusual References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87912 Clio: >4)or you belong to a group which is routinely not served there (e.g. house-elves, goblins, vampires ...) >Well, Severus Snape is always a suspect, but I can hardly imagine why he would be thrown out of the pub. Unless he *is* a vampire, as suspected, and falls into your category 4...but that wouldn't explain how the Hog's Head staff would know Snape was a vampire but no one else seems to. -Daisy. I'm new. Hi there! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gawain at ofir.dk Thu Jan 1 18:57:00 2004 From: gawain at ofir.dk (romerskesims) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:57:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87913 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kneasy" wrote: > > As to the other two, the bucking broomstick with knobbly knees could > be James suffering from a Sevvy hex. Harry's antecedents in the Mirror > had knobbly knees and James was supposed to be the Quidditch superstar. > Snape would probably think a hex would be embarassing to James. > We have no knowledge of Snape's expertise on a broomstick. > > The arguing adults - again I've argued that Snape is not the child but the > adult. This was his family and they are the reason that he is anti- Voldy. > It makes for believable motivation. > > Kneasy The child with the broomstick is described as "scrawny", not as having knobbly knees...(There's a slight diffence, isn't there?) Unless that memory was seen from Snape's perspective where was he then, if it was James on the broomstick? I think that if Snape was the adult, and the scene took place before Voldemort fell, he would be a teenage parent or something like that, if we assume he was 35/36 in GoF. Tine From mommystery at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 18:30:28 2004 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:30:28 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: I also wonder why Lupin saw Peter in the Map, but not Snape--or did he? One possibility is that once Snape saw Black's name on the Map, he didn't look any further and just ran for the shack. Ces From mommystery at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 18:24:28 2004 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:24:28 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: The fact that there were no embers or anything in the fire is a sign that Snape simply does not (or has not recently) use the fire. Exactly, it's my opinion that Snape probably wants any students who have to come in there to be as uncomfortable as possible - so he probably very rarely has a fire going. Ces From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 19:51:17 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:51:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <001701c3d0a0$9ff0a980$0258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87916 Alla: > Are you saying that the real, hidden purpose of the Oclumency lessons was to open Harry's mind to Voldy ? Talisman: That would be correct, as the canonical evidence cited in my earlier post and references demonstrate. This is exactly the effect the lessons had. Rowling not only allows us to see this for ourselves, but underscores the point by having Harry, Hagrid, Ron and Hermione acknowledge it in turn, and then finally validates it when DD explains why he chose not to give Harry the lessons, himself. Amanda: I'd have to say that this is *precisely* the reason I don't trust this interpretation. Because the pathway has been cleared, the paving stones laid, and little signs put up pointing the way. Rowling is a *master* at making the reasonable or logical conclusion not the correct one. Or not completely correct. Witness what she did with Voldemort and his ability to detect lies. Debates were held many times pre-OoP, as to whether this is a true ability (and thus Snape could not be a spy, because you *can't* lie to Voldemort) or whether this is simply something Voldemort, egotist, believes about himself, since he is the source of the information. And lo and behold--*both* sides were correct. It is not an innate ability. It is a spell. But it also *is* possible to lie to him. I submit that some dual interpretation is very, very likely in the effects of the Occlumency lessons, as well. Snape is a frustrating character--and fertile ground for discussions like this--because there is not one single thing he has done in any book to date which can be ascribed, with anything like certainty, to one clear motive. The reason Snape discussions can get heated is just this; because both the negative and the positive motivations can be supported, but neither are conclusive. Snape discussions that move to Snape arguments invetiably end as agreements to disagree, because of this ambiguity. An ambiguity which has been, I believe, carefully preserved by JKR and which makes it impossible at this stage to state, with certainty, The Answer. ~Amanda From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 20:08:40 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:08:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <002201c3d0a3$0da268e0$0258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87917 vmonte spake, and said thusly: > I agree that Harry ignores intructions and often relies on instinct > intstead of logic in times of trouble. Harry is neither logical, > clever, nor a strategist. He gets out of tight spots because he has > natural talent, thinks quickly on his feet, has loyal friends who > have extra ability in what he lacks. Hermione and Ron complete "the > dream team." Interesting take. And in this case, the rest of the team let him down, as it were--they also forgot Snape was in the Order, when they were plotting to break into Umbridge's office; and they also failed to seek him out after they escaped Umbridge's office (I am assuming that Harry's attempt to communicate to Snape in her office reminded them, although this may not be true); they, even the logical Hermione (who had analyzed the situation spot-on and been ignored), charged off on thestrals instead of going back to the castle to Snape (which they could have; Umbridge and her minions were out of the way for the time being). I was frustrated by both Hermione and Ron in that whole "rescue" episode, almost as much as I was by Harry. > 1. I wonder why Snape removed his thoughts in front of Harry? He may not have known that Harry knew what the Pensieve was. Dumbledore is not exactly a bubbling font of information, and I can see him not telling Snape that Harry (a) knew what this was and (b) knew how to access the memories in it. > 2. If the pensieve belonged to Dumbledore where some of his memories also in the pensieve? I thought the description when we first see it on Snape's desk is that it's empty; I got that impression because the descriptions of the thoughts when Snape *does* put some in there are so vivid. Like there hadn't been any in there before. > 3. Have other people at the school placed their memories in this > pensieve? If they've used the Pensieve, I'm betting they haven't left memories in there. See #2. > 4. How do we know that these memories are Snapes? Is it just because Harry repeated several times that they were. (Remember Harry always takes things at face value.) Because we are told at least twice that Snape performed their removal in front of Harry, and we see him replacing them afterwards. > 5. Can pensieve memories be altered in order to deceive? Good question. With no canon that I can think of to answer it. Hm. The Dishwasher people are going to *jump* on this, having Snape a superb actor *and* a tamperer with his memories, which he really *wanted* Harry to see, tra la. Ugh. I'd imagine anything can be altered. But I don't think Snape did, because I think he really *did* remove them to prevent Harry seeing them accidentally. Also, neither Lupin nor Sirius corrects or argues with any of the events that Harry saw, as he related them, telling me that that memory, at least, was probably accurate. > 6. Is there something else in the memory, besides the obvious, that Snape would fear that Harry might have seen? Well, we didn't see *all* of it. [smiles the Snape/Lily theorist] Also, there were two other memories (three is the number the first Occlumency lesson mentions) which Harry didn't see any of. > 7. If Snape borrowed the pensieve from Dumbledore did Dumbledore warn Snape that Harry might take a peek, or was Snape (or Dumbledore) counting on Harry peeking? See #1 above. I don't think Snape would have left Harry alone with an open bowlful of his memories if he had any idea that Harry knew what they were or how to access it. So I'd say no, Snape really wanted them out of the equation. As for what Dumbledore may be engineering? Probably no as well; but one never knows. > 8. Would there be a reason that Snape would want to end occulmency lessons. I've gone into some analysis of why he might *need* to, for his own protection, after Harry's intrusion. I think Snape must be very careful as to what memories or emotions he allows himself to have, in relation to Harry (and the rest of the Order), and must control the situations and extent to which he interacts. I suggested that a "bleedover" where Snape now associates a James emotion *directly* with Harry might in some way endanger Snape's ability to successfully Occlumens in front of Voldemort. This is only one of the potential reasons, you understand. > Just some thoughts. Good ones. ~Amanda From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jan 1 20:13:22 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:13:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office Message-ID: <20.1fa7c80b.2d25d962@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: The fact that there were no embers or anything in the fire is a sign that Snape simply does not (or has not recently) use the fire. And Ces (mommystery at hotmail.com ) replied: Exactly, it's my opinion that Snape probably wants any students who have to come in there to be as uncomfortable as possible - so he probably very rarely has a fire going. ******************** Sherrie here: I'm sure the comfort of the students probably isn't much of a concern for Snape - and his own robes certainly seem heavy enough to keep him warm! In addition, the office is lined with slimy things in jars - which might be adversely affected by heat. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 20:21:40 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:21:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <004e01c3d0a4$dea6e780$0258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87919 > > Thren wrote: > > > > What it suggests to me is that he hasn't been in his office lately Jake: > This seems unlikely. To those out there who do not rely on fire as a > primary source of heat, this may seem logical. However, fires are > kept going even when one is not around (when it is cold) even if it > is just leaving the embers going. The fact that there were no embers > or anything in the fire is a sign that Snape simply does not (or has > not recently) use the fire. At the point when they enter his office, the implication is that Snape hasn't been in there for a while. He's been out looking for Harry and Ron. And found them. The actual description said "the fireplace was dark and empty." In my ongoing quest to debunk Vampire!Snape, I suggest that Snape had been off doing the things teachers do to get ready for the influx of students, and hadn't been puttering in his office much at all that day. And the elves had cleaned it. ~Amanda [Snape is *so* not a vampire] From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 20:25:25 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:25:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <005701c3d0a5$64630ca0$0258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87920 > vmonte responds: > Snape really loses emotional control at the end of POA. I feel that > we truly get a glimpse of Snape for the first time here. Agreed. > I also wonder why Lupin saw Peter in the Map, but not Snape--or did > he? When Lupin was looking at the map and saw Peter with Harry, Ron, and Hermione, Snape was presumably in his office or lab or wherever, just about to realize that Lupin hadn't had his Wolfsbane potion that day. He had not yet "entered the fray," as it were. I imagine if Lupin had looked at Snape's office or lab, he'd have seen Snape's dot there. ~Amanda From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 20:33:09 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:33:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <005f01c3d0a6$78e49260$0258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87921 Oooh, Talisman. Yes. > I don't agree that humiliation was the primary goal. It probably didn't *hurt*--but my take on Snape is that he keeps his eyes on the main goal so very much, that he really considers minor considerations like individual feelings to be, well, minor. Whereas for most of the rest of us (or them), they are where we *live* and very, very major. > If anyone is up for a wager, I'm betting that knowledge of the > Draught of Living Death; the use of the bezoar as a poison antidote; > and, the ability to identify Wolfsbane, by any other name (SS 138); > will become critical to Harry before the final denouement. > > Instead of being dependent on Hermione's notes, Harry will have > vivid recall of this information--just when he needs it--thanks to > this stressful little scene. > > Some of my considerations are: my overall assessment of Snape's > motives; my hunch that some strategic death-faking could come in > handy; the probability that the Malfoy's haven't sold all of > those "embarrassing" poisons they stash in their secret chamber(CoS > 51), and the fact that there are werewolves about--whether you > expect to use Aconite in the fight against ESE ones(that's for > Pippin), or recognize it in order to keep the nice ones safe. > > Not essential, but icing on the cake, is the dreaded Movie > Contamination of the Potion Master scene in SS. You probably > remember that JKR told us she gave Rickman inside info so he would > know how to play his character. Well, in the movie, Snape pulls a > chair up to Harry's desk, sits down in it, and locks Harry in an > occular half-nelson, while downloading all the pertinent information > in a rather earnest and intense manner. YES, to all of this, and especially that last, because it was that interpretation that made me connect all that to realize Snape could well have been warning Harry. In a very acid manner, to be sure, but how *frustrating* to have the hope of the wizarding world show up to Hogwarts so bloody *ignorant*! When one has devoted one's life to the cause of defeating Voldemort, and then a key player in that effort shows up, and the level of preparation in that player is absolute *nil*? I think Snape is very frustrated by this realization, and Harry, even though it's not his own fault, is in front of him and is the target of Snape's aggravation. This also works in nicely with my theory that Snape must be very careful of the memories and emotions he has of Harry, so as to be able to lie to Voldemort, and so this is probably one of the only ways he can impart information to Harry in any sort of memorable way. ~Amanda, whose gold coins are all chocolate this time of the year, and rapidly being stolen by children From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 21:06:52 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:06:52 -0000 Subject: Dursleys Targets for LV? (Was Re: Previous Grimauld Place/Inheritance) In-Reply-To: <20040101181639.26946.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Paula Gaon wrote: *minor snipping* This is why I imagine Harry getting Grimauld. He is after Sirius' legal ward and after all the work that the Order has done fixing the place up, surely JKR won't let them lose it, IMHO. It also occurs to me that Harry's inheriting Grimauld would be a great plot device for the coming books. He'd live in the Order's Headquarters, plus with his new found talent for teaching/faciliting spells against the Dark Arts, we'd have a perfect setup for a real "Anti-Voldemort Center". What do you think? > > ~Paula Gaon Yes, I think that Harry should inherit old Number 12 Grimmauld, but it probably won't happen until he is of age (in the wizarding world, 17). But we know that he can't live there permanantly yet: according to DD Harry must return to Privet Drive every year so that he can be protected by his mother's bloood charm. If this charm was not in place, IMHO, then Harry would surely have been sent to No. 12 immediately following GoF, which would have meant that he would not have had to have spent a miserable month on Privet Drive, and perhaps would have lightened his mood a bit. But that's all beside the point. Harry can't be at Grimmauld Place permanantly, the blood charm won't work anymore. Privet Drive is the only place where LV can't harm him. Here's an interesting thought, though: how long will the charm work? Will the Dursleys end up targets for LV now? Are they protected by their relation to Harry and Lily? Or is it a one way thing? When Harry's of age will the protection end? Just a few things that I have been pondering since my last read through. Meri From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 21:17:24 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:17:24 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87923 Ces wrote: >One possibility is that once Snape saw Black's name on the Map, he didn't look any further and just ran for the shack.< KathyK: Snape didn't see Sirius' name on the map, he saw Lupin's. Specifically, he saw Lupin's dot heading off the map to the Shrieking Shack. Sirius was already off the map as he was already in the Shack at the time Snape looked at the map. Peter was also in the shack and thus not appearing on the map when Snape found it. As Snape says, he suspected Lupin was helping Sirius and when he saw Lupin heading off to the Shrieking Shack, he believed his suspicions were confirmed. Since Lupin chose not to share important information about Sirius with Dumbledore, Snape was right in a sense. So once Snape saw Lupin rushing down the passage, he went after them, just knowing he'd catch Lupin helping Sirius. KathyK From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 1 21:17:39 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:17:39 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87924 JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. Here is the summary of the theory. (1) Galadriel Waters has a rule that Ron is always wrong except when he is telling a joke. And in OOTP 31, he expresses his dislike with Divination by saying that he would not believe tea leaves even if they spelled out "Die, Ron, die" (p. 718 US ed.). Interestingly, JKR repeats the joke in her "Fantastic Beast" book: on the back of the first page, Harry and Ron are playing a game of Hangman when one of them writes "You die Weasley." (Obviously that should be Harry saying that, but I am not sure whose handwriting is whose.) (2) The main clue is the chess game at the end of PS/SS (ch. 16). Ron had already demonstrated his skill at Wizards Chess, and in the game at the end of the book he commands the pieces and sacrifices himself so that Harry can get to the stone and defeat LV. Ron says "It's the only way . . . I've got to be taken." I think in Book 7 this will be repeated for real: Ron will be a leader in the DA and he will have to intentionally sacrifice himself so that Harry can get to LV and defeat him. This time he will be killed for real. Chess skills are not always transferable to the real world, since the game is so abstract and analytical, but JKR did say in Book 1 when Ron was teaching Harry how to play that Wizards Chess was like regular chess "except that the figures were alive, which made it a lot like directing troops in battle" (PS/SS 12, p. 199). That it was like "directing troops in battle" shows what JKR thinks of the skill. He got his troops to trust him and to follow him without question (p. 199). Ron's skill in Wizards Chess is repeated in all the books; so JKR keeps reminding us of it. Indeed, it is the only still Ron apparently has until Quidditch half way through OOTP. (But Ron definitely still needs to develop this leadership skill, his fighting skills, and in general must mature; in OOTP, both Harry and Hermione seem much more mature.) In chess, Knights usually don't last to the end of the game, but are sacrificed. Why didn't JKR put Ron on the King or Queen where he would be relatively safe rather than on a minor piece between his friends? It is a foreshadowing of what is to come. How much the PS/SS chess game can be worked out as a fuller analogy of what is to come is not clear. The faceless white pieces may represent the masked DE's, with the Queen (Bellatrix) being the one who kills Ron. (The DE's are white because white always makes the first move in chess.) Ron won't be a commander in the Order at his age. It is his willing sacrifice to help Harry that is important. (3) In POA, Ron says that Sirius will have to kill him if he is going to kill Harry. That reiterates the "sacrifice to the death" theme. (4) In the Christmas scene in POA 11, Trelawney brings the idea that when 13 people sit down to dine, the first one to get up dies. Together Harry and Ron are the first to get up. (5) The Lexicon under "Wands" notes that Ron, like Cedric, has a wand with a unicorn hair. In PS/SS, Hagrid says a unicorn is hurt to which the centaur Ronan replies that "Always the innocent are the first victims." The Lexicon then asks if Ron is next. (6) Other things indirectly support this idea. At the end of Books 1, 3, and 5, Ron gets hurt badly. If this pattern continues, he is safe in Book 6, but in danger at the end of Book 7. JKR also seems to be preparing Molly Weasley for the death of at least one of her children by the Boggart scene in OOTP 9. Nobody wants to see Ron die, but those are the clues. He is not just another goofy sidekick who always gets killed off in the movies. His death would be even more of tragic if he gets the things he wanted from the Mirror of Erised scene in Book 1 (ch. 12) ? Quidditch captain and Head Boy ? and then dies. He is already outshining his brothers in one respect: he got an award for service to Hogwarts in COS. From jakejensen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 22:22:05 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:22:05 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <004e01c3d0a4$dea6e780$0258aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > The actual description said "the fireplace was dark and empty." In my > ongoing quest to debunk Vampire!Snape, I suggest that Snape had been off > doing the things teachers do to get ready for the influx of students, and > hadn't been puttering in his office much at all that day. And the elves had > cleaned it. > > ~Amanda > [Snape is *so* not a vampire] This still doesn't explain why Snape does not light the fire (which is apparently easy to do) and McGonagall does. I don't buy the torture logic. I do not see any canon suggesting Snape is torturing the boys or that he wears a thicker cloak. The torture scenerio may make sense if he is indifferent to cold (given that he is undead), but not if he is just a normal human being (this would be like putting someone under the heat lamp and then sitting there yourself....it makes no sense). I don't buy that containers in the office would be adversely affected by the heat (McGonagall should know this or Snape should douse the fire if this is the case). Additionally, one does not "clean" a fire when it is cold outside. Embers are left, because they are useful. Jake From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 1 22:39:39 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:39:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <000601c3d0b8$255e4200$5e5aaacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 87926 Jake: > This still doesn't explain why Snape does not light the fire (which > is apparently easy to do) and McGonagall does. One other thing. Snape is certain that he's caught Ron and Harry in an expel-worthy offense. He deposits them in his office and hurries off to get those who "do have that happy power," Dumbledore and McGonagall. I think his mind was on *that,* and he was hurrying. He spent only enough time talking to the boys to let them know the seriousness of what they had done. There was no toying. Seeing to the comfort of the boys would have been low on his list on *any* occasion; on this particular one, I don't think it even registered. ~Amanda, who wasn't selling, just opinionating From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Thu Jan 1 23:13:41 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:13:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office Message-ID: <58B6EE0E.15E9CD17.4B073798@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87927 In a message dated 1/1/2004 5:22:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, "jakedjensen" writes: >This still doesn't explain why Snape does not light the fire (which >is apparently easy to do) and McGonagall does. I don't buy the >torture logic. I do not see any canon suggesting Snape is torturing >the boys or that he wears a thicker cloak. The torture scenerio may >make sense if he is indifferent to cold (given that he is undead), >but not if he is just a normal human being (this would be like >putting someone under the heat lamp and then sitting there >yourself....it makes no sense). I don't buy that containers in the >office would be adversely affected by the heat (McGonagall should >know this or Snape should douse the fire if this is the case). >Additionally, one does not "clean" a fire when it is cold outside. >Embers are left, because they are useful. A normal human can be indifferent to cold. I am. How does the cold not make sense? If he's not bothered by it, he probably doesn't even notice it. I don't notice when it's really cold in my house. And, as Amanda has said, would keeping Harry and Ron comfortable be high on Severus' list? More importantly, it's his office. If he likes the cold, he shouldn't really be expected to change it. My Calculus teacher's room is about -8 billion degrees, and we all just suck it up and deal with it. Oryomai From pjcousins at btinternet.com Thu Jan 1 23:23:54 2004 From: pjcousins at btinternet.com (confusinglyso) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:23:54 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: DD plant Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87928 I wonder whether there really was an eavesdropper. Trelawney is being interviewed by Dumbledore when she goes into a trance to produce the prophecy. 1) Dumbledore must give her full attention so that he does not miss any detail, (or could 'pensieve recall' overcome this problem?) 2) Fracas to eject "eavesdropper" could cause trance to be broken. DD believes the prophecy but has to let LV know part of it to set events in motion. The Lexicon shows the Timeline as follows: DD interviews Trelawney in Spring 1980 (possibly fall 1979) Harry is born 31 July 1980 DD hires Snape 1980, presumably for September term start. Snape is reformed DE. DD trains Snape in Occlumency/Legilimency. DD then sends Snape to LV with the tale that he had overheard the beginning of a prophecy concerning LV and one who would vanquish him. DD seems to be totally driven by the prophecy as other posters have pointed out. My only problem with my theory is OoP Chapter 'Educational Decree #24' page 323 UK edition, where Umbridge is questioning Snape on how long he has taught at Hogwarts and he replies 'Fourteen years'. This reply contradicts the Lexicon, can 15 years be supported from other canon. Harry is 15+ in OoP. Could Snape be lying to Umbridge about his length of service? Why would he need to lie about this? Phil From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jan 1 23:50:21 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:50:21 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87929 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think > one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. Here is the summary of the theory. > > Other things indirectly support this idea. At the end of Books > 1, 3, and 5, Ron gets hurt badly. If this pattern continues, he is > safe in Book 6, but in danger at the end of Book 7. > > JKR also seems to be preparing Molly Weasley for the death of at > least one of her children by the Boggart scene in OOTP 9. It's certainly a popular question. The 1,3,5 pattern is interesting. I do think it might be significant that Molly's children have not *actually* died - it only appears that way (Shelob, anyone?). Maybe we will be led to believe that one of the Weasleys has died, but it will turn out not to be true. Maybe that will be the biggest red herring of all: we all speculate about Ron dying, children run up to JKR in the street begging her not to kill Ron, and then she kills... Hermione. Allie (who will cry for just as long if Ron dies as for Harry) From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Fri Jan 2 01:17:19 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Juleczka) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:17:19 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: <1072988769.5552.85831.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87930 > bboy_mn: > As to the wizard world, we don't know exactly how it typically works, > so the best we can do is draw models for likely muggle systems of > inheritance. > > My suggestion of Harry and Draco sharing the inheritance was just > speculation on a possible outcome. That would actually be a very > unusual and uncommon end result. > > If you read some of the older threads I suggested, you will find > comments from people who are far more familiar with British and > European inheritance traditions and customs than I am. In fact, it was > one of their comments that made me aware that Draco was indeed the > most likely heir to the Black estate. Now me Julia: I'm from Europe, from Poland. I don't know how it exactly works in Britan but in my country (and also other European countries - from continent) you inherit property even if you are female. So when someone dies everything goes to his closest person from family (or husband/wife). So IMO this is Lucius wife who inherits Grimmauld Place 12. But as I say, British have their own traditions so maybe in their country they have other system. Julia From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 22:16:30 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:16:30 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87931 Robert Jones wrote: Galadriel Waters has a rule that Ron is always wrong except when > he is telling a joke. Now Neri: Even without the book I can remember at least one joke of Ron that did not come true and can never come true. This is somewhere in the beginning of GoF when he complains about Percy's admiration to his boss, Crouch Sr., and says something like "they will be announcing their engagement any day now". Now, if one is *very* keen on this theory, one might claim that maybe Percy and Crouch did become secretly engaged before Crouch died, but that is still not good enough, because they never announced it... I'm sure that there are more humorous predictions of Ron that did not come true even remotely, if the books are searched methodically, but I feel a bit lazy right now. But generally I agree that Ron is in great danger of not surviving Book 8, and I sincerely hope that this isn't true and that he will live happily ever after. Neri From mauranen at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 23:56:07 2004 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:56:07 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang in Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87932 > "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > > > I still find it very odd that Durmstrang's in Norway or Sweden. Both > > the name of the school (German-sounding) and the name of its students > > (Slavic-sounding) are very foreign to the Scandinavian language. Well > > well... Jekatiska: I agree. Whatever way you look at it, the names do not fit Scandinavia. But this could only be JKR's misconception of Scandinavia. _Geographically_ Scandinavia means Sweden, Norway and Denmark; linguistically Iceland, and politically Iceland and Finland are included. This last group of countries is really called "The Nordic Countries", but most foreigners are unaware of this and simply refer to it as "Scandinavia". It's a lot easier, but leads to a lot of misunderstandings. Even of we ignore the Scandinavia bit, the Murmansk area or Finland will not do, because there are no mountains. And the Murmansk region or the Kola is in quite a bad state due to pollution. Not much forests to speak of, as far as I know. But how about Spitsbergen? It's part of Norway and way up in the Barents Sea, where it would be difficult to find. And the place names up there sound less Scandinavian, too. Lots of mountains and no daylight in winter. My vote goes for Spitsbergen. As for other wizarding schools, I suspect there are more than just the three in Europe. Although the wizarding community in Europe is not enormous, I doubt that three schools would be enough for them. I mean, Hogwarts students are all British, aren't they? Or as far as we know. I think it is implied in GoF. And Beaubatonx students are French, right? But where do all the Spanish, Italian, Greek, German, Polish, Dutch etc. etc. etc. witches and wizards go to? ;) > Arya wrote: > For me, it's the fact that they arrive in a that huge ship that rings of being > some traditional Viking Longship vessel. Viking ships typically didn't have much of a deck and certainly no cabins or accommodation suitable for a modern schoolkid (or anyone at all living in this day and age). And you certainly wouldn't want to live on one for months on end. I had the impression of a much later type of vessel, with an elaborate captain's cabin for Karkaroff and hammocks or bunks for the kids. I could be wrong, of course. But judging from several mistakes in the book, I suspect JKR is not an expert on sailing ships. (I will not bore you with details ;) > Hmm, I wonder how Hogwarts would have arrived at a Triwizard Tournament if > it were hosted at one of the other schools....in a giant lemon drop chariot? Why, that should be quite obvious: thestral-drawn carriages. ;) Jekatiska From helenhorsley at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 00:33:27 2004 From: helenhorsley at hotmail.com (dorapye) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:33:27 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: round up the usual suspects ...and one unusual In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87933 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" > wrote: > > Although I bet we won't find out until book 7, I thought it might be > > useful to list all the characters who may be the eavesdropper who > > overheard the prophecy, and why. > > > [snip] > > Any other suspects people want to add? > > > > JoTwo > > In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clio44a" wrote: > > So my most likely suspects are: Some unnamed house-elf and Regulus > Black. Ddore would have an excellent reason not to name any of them > to Harry. Harry already hates Kreacher, and the mention of a Black > would probabely send Harry into hysterics after Sirius has just died. > I am farily sure Ddore knows who was the eavesdropper, either from > whoever threw him out that night, or from his DE intelligence source. > > Now dorapye: Hmmm..Regulus Black...and at the beginning of OotP, when Harry and Sirius are examining the tapestry family tree at Grimmauld Place, there is next to Regulus's name a 'date of death (some fifteen years previously)' and Harry, of course, is just fifteen so... If Regulus *was* the eavesdropper, he informed Voldemort, but then, some months later, probably just after (or just before?) Harry's and Neville's births, when it became obvious that the small part of the prophecy he had heard referred to his big bro's best friends, perhaps Regulus panicked as he realised the information he had given 'his master' was most likely putting his brother in Voldy's firing line.. ...course, he wouldn't have known that Sirius was in the Order of the Phoenix as Sirius would have left school and home some years previously, so this might have been the first point that he realised his brother (a pureblood, after all) was in danger from LV, when he heard LV declare the Potters as a target.....though of course LV doesn't actually go after the Potters till Harry is 15 months old...Hmmm.... ....thinking 'aloud' somewhat....but suppose Regulus did, whilst working as a DE, learn that LV had identified the Potter baby and the Longbottom baby as possible contenders for the role of 'The One', Regulus would immediately recognise that Sirius, long time best mate of James Potter, would be in danger (not least 'cos he's wild and reckless and would risk anything for James); Regulus might try to 'back out', to warn his brother, or Dumbledore, and this may be why he was executed by LV...not long after Harry's birth, or possibly just before it, it would seem.. But if he did try to warn Sirius, clearly he never got to him, as Sirius has nothing but contempt for his DE little brother. Clio: > After rereading my post I must say my prime suspect is Regulus Black. > It just all fits. He probably was still in school at the time of the > prophecy and therefore not allowed in Hogsmeade at nights. He was a > follower of the Dark Lord and would have passed the information to him. > This also would assign a function to a yet not used character. And we > know people mentioned in passing can become important. > dorapye: Yes, it would give an interesting dimension to this, as yet, insignificant character; it would also lend the Potter/Black relationship another arc of tragedy. The more I think on it, the more I like it...the tragedy of the unwitting filial betrayer, who realises to late that his actions have sealed the tragic fate of his brother...but he never gets the chance to make reparations, and his brother never knows the goodness in him...sigh! What d'you think? dorapye From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 01:14:53 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:14:53 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87934 vmonte replies to Mr. Jones terrific post: I feel the same way about Ron Weasely. Ron has been the most difficult for me to figure out. Every one of the characters in the book has a strength particular to themselves. For a long time I saw Ron as just being the sidekick to Hermione and Harry. Then I realized that Rowling lets us know right away (in book 1) what Ron's strengths are. He is a great strategist!!! THE CHESS GAME!!! (In fact, Dumbledore is so impressed with Ron's game at the end of the 1st book that he awards points to Gryffindor house!). I believe that the game is symbolic for the war that is to come (like you and other fans have mentioned). The Quidditch positions may also be symbolic. If Ron becomes team captain, then he will lead an army of children (he will be their strategist). Also, Ron's position is Keeper, so he will act as a goalie to block shots (or the shot that is heading for Harry). Ron may sacrifice himself and take a fatal hit for Harry. Harry's the "Seeker" so he will be busy chasing one thing Voldemort or the "golden snitch"--perhaps symbolic for an OOTP traitor. It's interesting that the "golden snitch" has wings... George and Fred will be the Beaters. They will protect and accompany the "Chasers" on the battle field. Instead of launching "Bludgers" to attack their opponents they will launch their own very large arsenal of homemade weapons. Ginny Weasley will be one of the Chasers (although she was also a Seeker while Harry was banned--so she may serve two roles during the war). This could go on and on.... Forgive my grammar, I'm a very tired mom... In the end the children will be the heroes (as usual), not the adults! Ron will gain more confidence as the books progress. "vmonte" From krirre.bokmal at telia.com Thu Jan 1 19:51:28 2004 From: krirre.bokmal at telia.com (cestrel_wings) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:51:28 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mommystery2003" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" > wrote: > The fact that there were no embers or anything in the fire is a sign > that Snape simply does not (or has not recently) use the fire. Ces: > Exactly, it's my opinion that Snape probably wants any students who > have to come in there to be as uncomfortable as possible - so he > probably very rarely has a fire going. But wouldn't Slytherins visit his office also? As we have seen, Snape clearly favours Slytherins, and I don't think he'd want them to be uncomfortable. Kristin From jakejensen at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 03:43:47 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:43:47 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87936 It is possible that Snape is a person who doesn't mind the cold (not undead, but just not affected as much as most people). Canon support for such a theory seems quite weak (if someone has some, please correct me), especially given the amount of canon suggesting Snape is a vampire (see, e.g., post #35299). Also, remember that JKR sets up this whole fireplace is dark and empty concept and then follows it with: "[McGonagall] raised her wand the moment she entered . . ." (CoS, p.80) McGonagall anticipates that the office will be cold ("the moment she entered") and JKR goes out of her way to establish this "seemingly pointless" idea (i.e., if it is just that Snape can stand the cold....she has yet to play with this idea anymore...). Whether you think Snape is a vampire or not you have to admit that JKR is constantly dropping vampire references in the books. Indeed, vampires are the single most talked about magical creature in the entire series (and we have yet to actually encounter one). Now, if Snape is a vampire, than this whole scene has a second dimension which foreshadows (those who say JKR doesn't foreshadow are incorrect, she does all the time, it is her strength) Snape's secret. In fact, this is the way JKR always weaves her mysteries. She drops little hints (Lupin's moon, Lupin missing Christmas dinner, etc.) and then drops the bomb in the end. Good discussion, Jake (who is still trying to buy even though Christmas is over) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 03:46:10 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:46:10 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juleczka wrote: snipps I don't know how it exactly works in Britan > but in my country (and also other European countries - from continent) you > inherit property even if you are female. So when someone dies everything > goes to his closest person from family (or husband/wife). So IMO this is > Lucius wife who inherits Grimmauld Place 12. But as I say, British have > their own traditions so maybe in their country they have other system. > > Julia Yes, but what about Bellatrix LeStrange or Andromeda Tonks? They are all sisters, and we have no cannon as to which is older. Despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact that the Tonks' were burned off the tapestry, Sirius calls Andromeda his favorite cousin, so perhaps, he left it to her or Nymphadora to hold in trust until Harry is of age. And if it was either Narcissa or Bellatrix, it would present quite a problem, wouldn't it? Now the Order's headquartes is owned by either a DE's wife or LV's girlfriend! Interesting possibilities. Meri From jakejensen at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 03:47:56 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:47:56 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang in Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87938 I believe Durmstrang is suppose to be in Bulgaria. Krum plays for Bulgaria and Durmstrang sounds like a place in Bulgaria. Here is a link to a map of Bulgaria so you can see what I mean: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/europe/bulgaria/bulgaria.htm Just my two cents, Jake From doliesl at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 03:58:35 2004 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:58:35 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87939 Jake wrote: > It is possible that Snape is a person who doesn't mind the cold D: Just want to throw in some ideas for this great discussion. Perhaps the fact Snape do not mind the cold has something to do with his upbringings...geographically. I believed some people have speculated where Snape's family came from; maybe they are from the North. Some have pointed out his physical resemblance to Krum. D. From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 2 05:02:02 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:02:02 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040102175831.02b04d90@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 87940 At 03:46 2/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: Meri wrote Yes, but what about Bellatrix LeStrange or Andromeda Tonks? They are all sisters, and we have no cannon as to which is older. Despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact that the Tonks' were burned off the tapestry, Sirius calls Andromeda his favorite cousin, so perhaps, he left it to her or Nymphadora to hold in trust until Harry is of age. And if it was either Narcissa or Bellatrix, it would present quite a problem, wouldn't it? Now the Order's headquartes is owned by either a DE's wife or LV's girlfriend! Interesting possibilities. Meri Tanya now. Due to my mothers genealogy interest. I read the family tree scene differently. If JKR is following the normal way of designing a family tree, then Bellatrix is the oldest, followed by Andromeda and Narcissa being the youngest in the family. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 05:23:56 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:23:56 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" message 87936wrote: >especially given the amount of canon suggesting Snape is >a vampire (see, e.g., post #35299). "K": There's tons of canon supporting vampire/half-vampire Snape, isn't there. :-) I won't go over it all again. I just couldn't resist posting on one of my favorite topics. I do agree with you on this particular scene but to be fair there is another fireplace scene in Snape's office: PoA/Ch 14/UK 'Come with me, Potter,' said Snape. Harry followed him downstairs, trying to wipe his hands clean on the inside of his robes without Snape noticing. They walked down the stairs to the dungeons and then into Snape's office. Harry had only been in here once before, and he had been in very serious trouble then, too. Snape had aquirred a few more horrible slimy things in jars since last time, all standing on shelves behind his desk, glinting in the *firelight* and adding to the threatening atmosphere. 'So...' said Snape softly. 'We'll see about this...' He strode across to his fire, seized a fistfull of glittering powder from a jar on the fireplace, and threw it into the flames. Jake: >Indeed, > vampires are the single most talked about magical creature in the > entire series (and we have yet to actually encounter one). "K": Strange, isn't it? Jake: >Now, if > Snape is a vampire, than this whole scene has a second dimension > which foreshadows (those who say JKR doesn't foreshadow are > incorrect, she does all the time, it is her strength) Snape's > secret. "K": Yes. She's good at dropping little hints. PoA/Ch 22/UK Concerning the now vacant DADA position: 'Wonder what they'll give us next year?' said Seamus Finnigan gloomily. "Maybe a vampire,' suggested Dean Thomas hopefully.~~~ It's not a question of *if* there will ever be a vampire DADA teacher but a matter of *when*. > Jake (who is still trying to buy even though Christmas is over) "K": Same here. Sad, isn't it? :-) D: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87939 >Perhaps the fact Snape do not mind the cold has something to do with >his upbringings...geographically. I believed some people have >speculated where Snape's family came from; maybe they are from the >North. Some have pointed out his physical resemblance to Krum. "K": It could be a hint as to where Snape's family is from but couldn't it also be a hint as to what Krum might also be? Surely we aren't going to only see one vampire? Koinonia Who for the most part doesn't care who the vampire turns out to be as long as we see one. Even though Snape would definitely be the best one. ~A muscle twitched unpleasantly at the corner of Snape's thin mouth every time he looked at Harry, and he was constantly flexing his fingers, as though itching to *place them around Harry's throat*.~ From yolandacarroll at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 01:29:36 2004 From: yolandacarroll at yahoo.com (yolandacarroll) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:29:36 -0000 Subject: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87942 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Was Snape in danger of failing of the broom instead of Harry? He > was > > doing his job. Blair wrote: > I actually find it hard to believe that no one else noticed that > either of them was muttering. I honestly still don't see how this is > his job. If a teacher sees two students fighting isn't it their job to try to break it up? If a teacher was threatening a student and another teacher walked by, wouldn't they have an obligation to say something, "Like excuse me. Is there a problem here?" (Where I went to school if a teacher did/had threatened a student that would have been sufficient to diffuse the situation. The rescuing teacher wouldn't have to physically take the offending teacher on.) It *IS* his job to protect a student from other students and I would imagine to protect a student from other teachers as well. For exmaple, McGonagall did make Moody (really Crouch Jr.) stop bouncing Malfoy about. So, yes I would think it would fall somewhere under his job description. Yolanda From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 2 04:05:19 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 04:05:19 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: DD plant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87943 "confusinglyso" wrote: >Fracas to eject "eavesdropper" could cause trance to be broken. Well,the text itself says that the one who was listening was thrown out. But it doesn't specify who did the throwing. I mean, somebody else might have been there, like Hagrid who might have spotted this man eavesdropping and threw him out. Alternately, it doesn't require that at all. After Dumbledore realised somebody was eavesdroping, he just might have conjured a spell that threw this fellow. That wouldn't break Trelawney's attention, would it? spangb From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 2 04:22:21 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 04:22:21 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Activism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87944 Hi, I was wondering if the next book will see a decrease in Hemione's fervour for elvish welfare. In OOTP everyone found a little setback to their beliefs. Harry saw a different facet of his parents which he didn't like. Mrs.Weasly must know that her overweaning care might have actually harmed Harry. Like that, after Hermione gets to know the real evil behaviour of Kreacher, will her enthusiasm be dampened? At least a little bit. I can't bear it if she tends to gloss over this crisis of conscience. Her cause might be a good thing but even those of us who fight for good causes have these crises where we begin to question the nature of what we believe. Will this happen to Hermione? Eventhough this is a small bit, it's one of those small things where one is curious to see how she would act. Actually, I am disappointed to find no marked growth in her charcter book after book. Something like what happened with Ginny and Harry, in book five. Hope she becomes more balsy and upfront. spangb From LWalshETAL at aol.com Fri Jan 2 04:23:56 2004 From: LWalshETAL at aol.com (LWalshETAL at aol.com) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:23:56 -0500 Subject: Jim McGuffin Message-ID: <56CA9E04.0FB4499E.0B739079@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87945 Remember Jim McGuffin with the weather? A Word a Day, put out by Anu Garg just featured the word McGuffin. I wasn't aware of the meaning of the word and perhaps others aren't either. He writes: "McGuffin (muh-GUF-in) noun, also MacGuffin A device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. [Coined by film director Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980).] A McGuffin could be a person, an object, or an event that characters of a story are interested in but that, intrinsically, if of little concern." I wonder if that means that Ted, the newscaster IS of concern, if McGuffin is NOT. Ted Tonks? anyone? Laura Walsh LWalshETAL at aol.com From thren at subreality.com Fri Jan 2 05:41:14 2004 From: thren at subreality.com (Thren) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:41:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF5047A.6090606@subreality.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87946 jakedjensen wrote: >This seems unlikely. To those out there who do not rely on fire as a >primary source of heat, this may seem logical. > Thren: Ah, but I *have* had to heat by fire. :) I know very well how *normal* fires work, but most wizards seem to work by *magical* fire. Point wand, and BOOM! Roaring fire, as though it's been going for hours. You need embers in a conventional fire, but if you can just 'point and flick', so to speak, you don't (because you can make a roaring fire out of thin air- you don't need to bring one up). Also, if Snape has become used to the cold (remember- at that point it was what, eleven years down in the dungeon office, *on top* of the fact that he spent seven years in Slytherin, whose rooms are also in the dungeon) he might not need a fire- September 1 is rather early in the year to be keeping a fire going all the time (sayeth a Canadian, just so you know what my perspective is on cold). I also think you're probably looking too closely at the text to see what you want to see. Plenty of people do it- that doesn't mean it's actually so. If only *some* people who are *specifically* looking for proof to back up a certain claim are seeing this 'proof', I think it's fair to say that this 'proof' is suspect. To be sure, there are many hints of things to come, and I suppose we can't say *anything* for sure until the series is over; but I think it *highly* improbable that Snape is a vampire. If he was, I'd be extremely disappointed in JKR. She can do better than that. From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 05:51:28 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:51:28 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office--maybe Snape is an Animagus--A Bat--not Vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87947 Jake wrote: Whether you think Snape is a vampire or not you have to admit that JKR is constantly dropping vampire references in the books. Indeed, vampires are the single most talked about magical creature in the entire series (and we have yet to actually encounter one). Now, if Snape is a vampire, than this whole scene has a second dimension which foreshadows (those who say JKR doesn't foreshadow are incorrect, she does all the time, it is her strength) Snape's secret. In fact, this is the way JKR always weaves her mysteries. She drops little hints (Lupin's moon, Lupin missing Christmas dinner, etc.) and then drops the bomb in the end. vmonte responds: Maybe Snape is not a Vampire but an Animagus--perhaps he can change into a bat! Snape's pensieve dream would be quite funny if it had a different meaning than what we are lead to believe. Maybe James Potter's gang real purpose was to "out" Snape in front of the school. Didn't the book state somewhere that Snape was always following the gang around trying to find reasons to get them expelled? What if Snape found out that they were all unregistered Animagi...? Maybe they were sending Snape a message: "We know that you too are also an unregistered Animagus!" So, they hang him upside down, like a "bat," in front of the school. Snape knows the real meaning of their attack while everyone else understands it as we do. Snape dwells in dark cold places right? Bats like cold caves... I tend to go to far with these theories... Later, vmonte From doc_jekyl at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 06:25:52 2004 From: doc_jekyl at hotmail.com (Dr. Jekyl) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:25:52 +0800 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87948 >Message: 22 > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:08:40 -0600 > From: "Amanda Geist" Amanda said: [snip] >I've gone into some analysis of why he might *need* to, for his own >protection, after Harry's intrusion. I think Snape must be very careful as >to what memories or emotions he allows himself to have, in relation to >Harry >(and the rest of the Order), and must control the situations and extent to >which he interacts. I suggested that a "bleedover" where Snape now >associates a James emotion *directly* with Harry might in some way endanger >Snape's ability to successfully Occlumens in front of Voldemort. > >This is only one of the potential reasons, you understand. [snip] Dr. Jekyl: I've seen the 'bleedover effect' used in another context to help explain why Snape removed those memories in the first place (aside from all the other intriguing theories put forth). Our boy Severus is, most of the time, a fairly rational sod and, when he agreed to teach Harry Occlumency, he would have realised that there were going to be a number of problems in doing so - not the least of which was his own extreme dislike of the boy, which in great part does appear to be a by-product of his hatred for James. Therefore, it's been put forward that Snape put the post-DADA OWL incident in the Pensieve in order to help keep his temper in check while he taught Harry on a one-to-one basis. It's harder to maintain that level of hatred for someone when you can't really remember one (or three) of the primary reasons why you do loathe them. With that in mind, I strongly suspect that one of the other two memories in the Pensieve was of The Prank. This memory removal left Snape with only his generalized dislike of Harry, as opposed to that dislike *and* a transferal of his raging hatred of James. This is supported in two ways. First, by Snape's behaviour during the lessons. I don't know about everyone else, but he seems calmer in them than otherwise and he actually gives Harry a teensy tiny modicum of praise. Secondly, it's a purported fact that you need a cool mind and a level head to practice Occlumency (and probably Legilimency as well), and Severus would have made an attempt to get his own mind as settled and level as possible. Even he has to know that he's not always entirely rational where the Boy Wonder and his father are concerned. Dr. Jekyl _________________________________________________________________ Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp From pixieberry at harborside.com Fri Jan 2 06:31:06 2004 From: pixieberry at harborside.com (Krystol Berry) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:31:06 -0800 Subject: Filk - Stuck to Quirrel Message-ID: <003501c3d0fa$0111a1c0$5e3a2d0c@D55NTV31> No: HPFGUIDX 87949 In the interest of filking all things Beatles, I humbly present my newest endeavor... :) Pixieberry Stuck to Quirrel To the tune of Another Girl by the Beatles If you haven't heard it (Horrors!), a midi can be found here: http://earlybeatles.com/midi/anothergirl.mid Harry, still recovering from his quest to save the Sorcerer's Stone, replies to Ron and Hermione's questions about his run-in with the Dark Lord. HARRY: Lord Voldemort was stuck to Quirrel, was stuck to Quirrel. Compelled me to stay and view what Erised would show Impart what I saw, immortality to bestow I ain't no fool, that Sorc'rer's Stone I didn't want Lord Voldemort was stuck to Quirrel, was stuck to Quirrel He's meaner than all the Dark Lords I plan to eschew The time of his recompense has been long overdue That's why I'm telling you that he had to be stopped Lord Voldemort was stuck to Quirrel Was stuck to Quirrel who then met a nasty end Another fortune might have led us to be friends I guess I could say that I've been unhappy, it's true But after today, well I've got perspective that's new I ain't no fool, that Sorc'rer's Stone I didn't want Lord Voldemort was stuck to Quirrel Was stuck to Quirrel who then met a nasty end Another fortune might have led us to be friends I guess I could say that I've been unhappy, it's true But after today, well I've got perspective that's new I ain't no fool, that Sorc'rer's Stone I didn't want Lord Voldemort was stuck to Quirrel, was stuck to Quirrel, was stuck to Quirrel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doliesl at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 08:16:56 2004 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:16:56 -0000 Subject: Jim McGuffin In-Reply-To: <56CA9E04.0FB4499E.0B739079@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87950 Laura: > "McGuffin (muh-GUF-in) noun, also MacGuffin > > A device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. > > [Coined by film director Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980).] > > A McGuffin could be a person, an object, or an event that characters of a story are interested in but that, intrinsically, if of little concern." > > I wonder if that means that Ted, the newscaster IS of > concern, if McGuffin is NOT. Ted Tonks? anyone? D: I wouldn't considered Ted the newscaster as MacGuffin, it is a seseme size detail that is forgetable and seemingly no importance: it is NOT a point of interest nor a goal for ANY of the character in the story. Tonks herself, the character, is not even heavy weight enough (yet at least) to be consider having much of a point of interest nor influence as an actual "plot device." In Hitchcock's film, the hero and heroine would be concerned about looking for some titanium or whatever spy mission they were assigned to, but that goal of theirs is of little interest for the audience and director. The REAL interest/focus is some other things: usually the process, especially the romantic relationship of the hero and heroine. What I would considered "MacGuffin" is something like Harry's Occlumency lesson. In the story it was assigned as Harry's goal to learn that skill. But the actual "goal" for writer/readers of that this plot device (or basically what reader should truly care for) are the whole process of the lesson itself-- the interaction between Snape and Harry, all the clues and revelation reveal to us along the process, and ultimately the Pensieve glimpse into Snape/MWPP past. That is what "MacGuffin" is about. The goal/interest of the character in the story (in this case: will Harry learn Occlumency?) is merely an excuse plot device that is not the real point of the story. Because what REALLY matter is: oh boy...did we just get a glimpse of Snape's awful childhood? wait...just what kind of memories did Snape put inside that pensieve...Harry, go have a peak for us please... D. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 09:38:47 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:38:47 -0000 Subject: Speculative Geography - Murmansk & Durmstrang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87951 Well, I couldn't contain myself any longer, I got out my CD-ROM Satellite Photo Maps so we could all see what the geograpic area of Kola/Murmansk Peninsula of Russia looked like. The first map shows Scotland, Scandinavia, Bulgaria, Kola Penisula, and other parts of Europe. The remaining maps are close ups of the Western Kola Peninsula, showing roads, trails, rail, towns, and villages. Note how far south Bulgaria is compared to Scotland and Scandinavia. The descriptions of Durmstrang indicates cold climate and short daylight hours, that implies far north. The highest elevation is about 3400 feet; not a tall mountian, but as tall as any of the mountains in Britian. The original CD-Rom map is interactive, so it shows elevations as you move the mouse pointer around the map. At one location near Apathy, it indicated an elevation of 18,000 feet, but I think that was an error. This area has very few roads, rail, or towns. As you can see from the maps, there are many lakes and easy access to the sea from inland as well as a lot of wild country side. Speculative Location of Durmstrang- http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/Files/murmansk/pg1.htm Also- Speculative Locations of Hogwarts- http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/Files/Hogwarts/hogwarts1.htm Speculative Location of Romanian Dragon Center- http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/Files/Hogwarts/Romania1.htm I've posted links to my other two map sites, so you can compare road, rail, and population density. The main reason why I insist that the school is in Russia, is that Drumstrang is a European school, and I have trouble seeing true Scandinavia as Europe or the location of a European school. My own opinion, which I'm sure you are tired of hearing by now, is that Scandinavia has it's own tradition of magic separate from Europe and therefore has it's own schools of magic. Just a thought. bboy_mn From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Fri Jan 2 11:38:49 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Juleczka) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:38:49 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <1073025122.7070.63577.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87952 Jake: > This still doesn't explain why Snape does not light the fire (which > is apparently easy to do) and McGonagall does. Now me, Julia: I think that something in McGonagall behaviuor is odd. Why did she light the fire the moment she step to his office? Dont you think it's rather rude? IMO McGonagall and Snape don't like each other that much to allow doing such things. What I'm trying to say is that when we come to someone house/apartment and if it isnt our close friend we dont switch on the light nor turn up the heat! Even if it's really dark or cold. We dont do these things simply because it's not our business! We come to visit someone not to live with him! So when McGonalgall who is rather official person did this it's strange for me... I'm Vampire!Snape supporter. IMHO McGonagall did it because he knew that Snape didnt realise that in his office was so cold. What do you think? Julia From derek at rhinobunny.com Fri Jan 2 11:39:27 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:39:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Jim McGuffin In-Reply-To: <56CA9E04.0FB4499E.0B739079@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040102031750.01f9b210@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87953 LWalshETAL at aol.com wrote: >Remember Jim McGuffin with the weather? A Word a Day, >put out by Anu Garg just featured the word McGuffin. >I wasn't aware of the meaning of the word and perhaps >others aren't either. > >He writes: >"McGuffin (muh-GUF-in) noun, also MacGuffin > A device that helps propel the plot in a story but >is of little importance in itself. A McGuffin could be >a person, an object, or an event that characters of a >story are interested in but that, intrinsically, if of >little concern." > >I wonder if that means that Ted, the newscaster IS of >concern, if McGuffin is NOT. Ted Tonks? anyone? Derek: I also noticed (the second time I read PS/SS) that the newscaster's name is McGuffin, and wondered if there might be significance to that. However, the definition of "McGuffin" in the Word of the Day source is a bit misleading, methinks. Hitchcock himself said, "The only thing that really matters is that, in the picture, the plans, documents or secrets must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they're of no importance whatsoever." So it's only to the filmmaker (or the author, in the case of HP) that the McGuffin is of little intrinsic concern. To that person, it doesn't matter as much exactly what the McGuffin *is* ... it's just important that there *be* a McGuffin. And actually, even this is not universal. The choice of McGuffin is undoubtedly important to many authors and directors. Hitchcock was simply saying that it generally wasn't important *to him* what was used as a McGuffin. But within the context of the story and its world, the McGuffin may be vitally important. Wanting to possess it (destroy it, reclaim it, protect it, discover it, explain it, etc.) is what drives the action of the characters. The One Ring from LotR is the ultimate McGuffin. ;-) The McGuffin in OotP was the bottled prophecy in the Ministry of Magic. One side's desire to get it, and the other side's desire to prevent them from getting it, were directly or indirectly responsible for almost every major event in the book. - Derek From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Fri Jan 2 04:12:17 2004 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:12:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <3FF4EFA1.3010506@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87954 Or perhaps there was no fire as it was not a cold time of year? How many people light a fire in August for warmth anyways? Snape did have a fire at a much later time which he used to summon Lupin. Jazmyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 2 12:24:24 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:24:24 +0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! Message-ID: <99B654EE-3D1E-11D8-BB33-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87955 > Talisman, dropping by and plunking a stack of golden Galleons on the counter, I don't agree that humiliation was the primary goal. If anyone is up for a wager, I'm betting that knowledge of the Draught of Living Death; the use of the bezoar as a poison antidote; and, the ability to identify Wolfsbane, by any other name (SS 138); will become critical to Harry before the final denouement. Instead of being dependent on Hermione's notes, Harry will have vivid recall of this information--just when he needs it--thanks to this stressful little scene. > Kneasy: Oh, I like this one! Exactly the sort of long-term clue that one can expect when an entire series is mapped out from the start. It would also give some credence to the Sevvy!DD double act theory; not definitive proof, but an indication. Snape's personal agenda is nicely covered by it too. Now we have to decide if this is a 'chance' clue or if Sevvy has some sort of fore-knowledge of events looming on the horizon. It's possible that there may have been talk among the DEs of eliminating Voldys!Bane, especially since Malfoy has an interesting cocktail bar in his little den. Interesting that Snape gives all three names for the same substance: Monkshood, Wolfsbane, Aconite. "What I tell you three times is true." Oh, yes! A Bezoar is usually obtained from a goat; just what was Aberforth attempting that was so inappropriate? Another straw in the wind, a bit of unobtrusive preparation from JKR? The one drawback to embracing the theory of fore-knowledge and the emphasis Snape places on this is the implication that Snape probably won't be around at the critical time. That would be a disappointment. Personally, I think the Potterverse would be a much poorer place without him. Harry I could lose without much angst; he's not all that interesting as an individual, it's the events around him and concerning him that attract me. But Snape is very different - it's the person that's compelling. > Geoff: I wonder whether friend Kneasy was concentrating too much on the approach of the New Year to be fair here.... His milk of human kindness jug definitely seems a bit in need of a refill. > Kneasy: Kneasy doesn't do milk of human kindness. Pale, insipid stuff, suitable for invalids and mewling babes - I prefer something more testing - an acid bath for example. > Laura, suspecting that Kneasy would fall into the latter of his two student categories and that Snape wouldn't like him any the better for it... > Kneasy: Probably true. I was not a compliant or docile student (once turfed out of a degree-level class for 3 months after rubbishing an habitually unprepared and mediocre lecturer to his face). Snape would prefer a smart-arse, I think; he'd enjoy the satisfaction of slapping them down. Let's face it, he needs some pleasures in his life. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From derek at rhinobunny.com Fri Jan 2 11:48:17 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:48:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] No fire in the office In-Reply-To: References: <1073025122.7070.63577.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040102034130.0268dec0@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87956 Juleczka wrote: >I think that something in McGonagall behaviuor is odd. Why did she light the >fire the moment she step to his office? Dont you think it's rather rude? IMO >McGonagall and Snape don't like each other that much to allow doing such >things. Derek: Interesting. It's easy to assume that Snape and McGonagall don't much like each other, but I can't think of any canon to support that idea. It's fairly clear (to Harry, our viewpoint) that McGonagall dislikes Lockhart and Umbridge, so she's not *too* worried about not showing dislike for a fellow professor to the students. But I can't recall any indication from McGonagall that she dislikes Snape. (Or any indication from Snape that he dislikes McGonagall any more than he dislikes everyone else.) Julia: >I'm Vampire!Snape supporter. IMHO McGonagall did it because he knew that >Snape didnt realise that in his office was so cold. Derek: IMO, that's one of the two most likely possibilities. (ie., that McGonagall knows from past experience that Snape keeps his office too cold for the students' well-being, either because Snape is a vampire or for whatever reason.) The other is that this was simply a literary device by JKR to illustrate that McGonagall is concerned about the students' welfare (even when she is angry), while Snape is not. - Derek From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 16:00:25 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:00:25 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87957 Tonya Here adding a thought to this wonderful discussion!! I personally think (and thought at first read) that the reason why Snape did not light the fire is because he was soo excited to find Harry and Ron doing something "expel worthy" and wanted to see it to the "expel point" that it never even crossed his mind that it was cold and the boys might be cold. McGonagall being a woman would of course notice this first off, the whole nurturing thing woman have. I know from my own experiences with my wonderful Husband that he has blinders on, it would never occured to him to light the fire for the boys if it was him. Just my thoughts!! Tonya From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 16:23:23 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:23:23 -0000 Subject: Albania Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87958 Hi all. Can anyone think of a good reason why LV would choose Albania as his hideout, bot before SS and between then and GoF? I can't think of any good connotations for magical stuff that's happening there, or even why Bertha Jorkins would want to travel there (as it is such war torn country). Any ideas why this is such a good hideout? Geography perhaps? Meri From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 2 17:01:40 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:01:40 -0000 Subject: Speculative Geography - Murmansk & Durmstrang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87959 bboy_mn wrote: > The main reason why I insist that the school is in Russia, is that > Drumstrang is a European school, and I have trouble seeing true > Scandinavia as Europe or the location of a European school. My own > opinion, which I'm sure you are tired of hearing by now, is that > Scandinavia has it's own tradition of magic separate from Europe and > therefore has it's own schools of magic. Berit replies: I am with you on this one Bboy_mn :-) Everything we know so far about Durmstrang, its students and the hints of its location don't suggest Scandinavia, but rather the northern part of Eastern Europe; i.e. Russia. Two of the countries in Scandinavia has got mountains, lakes and very little daylight in the winter, but the rest of the clues has to fit too, and it doesn't. Russia/Murmansk area on the other hand fits every detail. Berit From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 2 17:33:17 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:33:17 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040102034130.0268dec0@mail.rhinobunny.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87960 Derek wrote: > Interesting. It's easy to assume that Snape and McGonagall don't much like each other, but I can't think of any canon to support that idea. But I can't recall any indication from McGonagall that she dislikes Snape. (Or any indication from Snape that he dislikes McGonagall any more than he dislikes everyone else.) > IMO, that's one of the two most likely possibilities. (ie., that > McGonagall knows from past experience that Snape keeps his office too > cold for the students' well-being, either because Snape is a vampire > or for whatever reason.) The other is that this was simply a literary > device by JKR to illustrate that McGonagall is concerned about the > students' welfare (even when she is angry), while Snape is not. Berit replies: I can't think of any canon to support that Snape and McGonagall dislike each other either. There IS canon evidence for them being quite competitive; rivals so to speak. But I get the impression this is quite good-natured, and that they respect each other. In SS McGonagall tells Harry and Oliver she couldn't look Snape in the eyes for weeks after the Gryffindor Quidditch team were flattened by the Slytherins :-) Compare this with the Entrance Hall scene in OoP were McGonagall is back from St.Mungo's and Snape greets her almost affectionately, clearly happy to have her back at Hogwarts... To me, the fact that McGonagall just lights Snape's fire without asking shows how "close" they are; McGonagall knows Snape won't mind; Snape's not offended because it's McGonagall doing it. I really enjoy watching their "friendship"; always supporting their own houses against each other, very keen to grab the House Cup from under the other one's nose, but with a lot of respect and humour :-) About Snape's fireplace: Snape not keeping a fire in his office when Ron and Harry were ushered in there is useless as evidence for him being a vampire, simply because we know he has kept a fire going in his office at other times. To me, the best evidence for him being a vampire is how Lupin makes the class write an essay on vampires not long after Snape had made them do one on werewolves... That REALLY is fishy :-). Combine this with Rowling's batlike descriptions of Snape's appearance and the way he glides through the corridors, and you have a case. Personally I am not so sure Snape is a vampire, but I am keeping Lupin's vampire essay in the back of my mind... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com Fri Jan 2 12:35:00 2004 From: Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:35:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87961 {Jazmyn Said} Or perhaps there was no fire as it was not a cold time of year? How many people light a fire in August for warmth anyways? Snape did have a fire at a much later time which he used to summon Lupin. {Anne replies} I think that more likely. A friend of mine from the UK tells me about the weather there often enough. (Not to mention the fact that it seems that air conditioning is a luxury over there--and most 'average' households don't have it--feel free to correct me, Helen, if I've got it wrong). I'm to sure about central heating, but unlike we spoiled Americans, who have central 'everything' (and still yowl about being too hot or too cold anyway), they seem to prefer to open the windows, or keep them closed according top the weather, and simply take advantage of the ambient conditions. Since the fireplace scene takes place in September (When I think the weather is still relatively warm), not to mention that JK makes it clear Snape hadn't been there (Since he was out looking for the "terrible two..." sorry, couldn't help the pun...:P), I suspect the lack of a fire had a less sinister meaning--IE He had yet to light it for the night. Not to mention that he does indeed have one lit later--during a scene where he'd likely have been in the room for a bit (And not in the process of trying to discipline, or at least instill some responsible sense, into Mr Potter and Mr. Weasley--which, would have of course, been his primary focus in the first scene mentioned). I've heard the Vampire!Snape theory before...and although I'll agree that JK Does seem to be leading us into thinking a vamp will show up at some point, perhaps even as a teacher, I don't think it's Snape. I have a few reasons for it. 1) She does tend to follow the original legends for monsters (Werewolves shift only on full moon, have certain physical characteristics, etc). Unfortunately, original legends on Vampires rarely if ever mention "Daywalkers" (Vamps that can function, fully capably, in full daytime--they come out, in most variations, at night, except for the Japanese Gaki, which apparently can go out whenever it likes. But none of us have ever seen Snape floating around as an amorphous cloud with glowing red eyes either). That's actually an affectation that showed up in literature, movies and comic books in the past 50 years or so---and even then, it's ascribed to either Vamps that are very old and/or powerful, vampires that have spent many years (decades or even centuries--and remember that Severus is only 35-36 at the beginning of the series) developing a potion/spell/whatever to combat the condition (Somehow, I don't think Snape, if he were Evil!Snape, would really care to bother if he were a Vamp. What a waste of valuable resources that could be put to better use?), or they've 'earned' their right to walk in the day by switching their natural vampire alignment from (evil) to (good). That last would, arguably, blow the Evil!Snape theorists right out the window...(Although the Asshole!Mean!Snape theorists would still be okay...^^;) 2) She rarely goes for 'stereotype' monsters either--Although Lupin does share a few of the original cinematic wolfman's gentle nature while not under the influence of the moon, he is actually a rare depiction. You barely believe it when it's first revealed. Most weres at least bow a little to their inner nature, becoming a bit rough around the edges, and downright murderous during full moon, even before they change....And, you have to admit, having pale, already 'batlike' Sev cast as a vampire would be both obvious and anticlimactic. She might do it anyway, but I would hate to see it (Although if her statement of "Look out for Severus in book 7" is any indication--he's obviously going to go around the bend, if even for a little while. Scary thought. Maybe is isn't one YET.....) Of course, here's another scary thought....I'm sure I missed the proper scenes to shoot this one down, and I know it can't be right...but does anyone remember seeing 150 year old Dumbledore out in the daylight? Wouldn't it be frightening if HE were the Vampire? *eg* Just something for the theorists to kick around. Anne From mommystery at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 15:46:35 2004 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:46:35 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cestrel_wings" wrote: But wouldn't Slytherins visit his office also? As we have seen, Snape clearly favours Slytherins, and I don't think he'd want them to be uncomfortable. Who know where he deals with the Slytherins...and another thing to take note of...he might not have lit the fire because he wasn't planning on staying in the office after dealing with Ron and Harry so he would see no need for one. Ces From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 20:06:59 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:06:59 -0000 Subject: Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Hi all. Can anyone think of a good reason why LV would choose > Albania as his hideout, bot before SS and between then and GoF? I > can't think of any good connotations for magical stuff that's > happening there, or even why Bertha Jorkins would want to travel > there (as it is such war torn country). Any ideas why this is such a > good hideout? Geography perhaps? > Meri Ginger half-answers: I have no idea as to why LV would choose it for a hangout, but, according to Bagman, Bertha was there to see her second cousin. He says on pp. 446-7 GoF (US hardcover) that she arrived there safely, but then went south to visit an aunt and vanished. We know she ran into Peter at a roadside inn. That part has always made me wonder-why didn't she apparate straight from one relative to the other? Was she flying? Can she apparate? How far south does this aunt live? Is it in Albania? Or in another country more southernly? Is the inn Muggle or Magical? My list goes on. I have seen some discussion as to why LV chose Albania, so I'll leave that to the more learned among us. I believe it was Steve (bboy_mn) who had a theory. This could be interesting. Ginger, still shaking off yesterday's festivities From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 02:42:39 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:42:39 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: <005701c3d0a5$64630ca0$0258aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87964 vmonte wrote: I also wonder why Lupin saw Peter in the Map, but not Snape--or did he? Amanda responded: When Lupin was looking at the map and saw Peter with Harry, Ron, and Hermione, Snape was presumably in his office or lab or wherever, just about to realize that Lupin hadn't had his Wolfsbane potion that day. He had not yet "entered the fray," as it were. I imagine if Lupin had looked at Snape's office or lab, he'd have seen Snape's dot there. vmonte fixes her unclear question: What I was trying to say was: Why didn't Snape see Peter in the map? Someone explained answer in separate post. Sorry, vmonte From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Fri Jan 2 20:10:49 2004 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:10:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Albania References: Message-ID: <3FF5D049.5080606@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87965 quigonginger wrote: > > > That part has always made me wonder-why didn't she apparate straight > from one relative to the other? Was she flying? Can she apparate? > How far south does this aunt live? Is it in Albania? Or in another > country more southernly? Is the inn Muggle or Magical? My list goes > on. > There may be limits to how far you can apparate or you must know the place you are going VERY well. There may be other methods of travel for long distances we have not heard about yet or even laws in different countries that prevent some kinds of travel. Maybe Bertha had a apparation permit for the UK, but not one for Albania? Like not everyone has an International Driver's License to drive a car in other countries then their own. Jazmyn From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 2 20:25:19 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:25:19 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040103091407.025d9370@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 87966 At 06:35 2/01/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Anne writes. > >1) She does tend to follow the original legends for monsters (Werewolves >shift only on full moon, have certain physical characteristics, etc). >Unfortunately, original legends on Vampires rarely if ever mention >"Daywalkers" (Vamps that can function, fully capably, in full >daytime--they come out, in most variations, at night, except for the >Japanese Gaki, which apparently can go out whenever it likes. But none of >us have ever seen Snape floating around as an amorphous cloud with glowing >red eyes either). > >Of course, here's another scary thought....I'm sure I missed the proper >scenes to shoot this one down, and I know it can't be right...but does >anyone remember seeing 150 year old Dumbledore out in the daylight? >Wouldn't it be frightening if HE were the Vampire? *eg* > >Just something for the theorists to kick around. > >Anne Tanya now. I had intended to not say this, but going to risk it. The only person with red eyes so far in the HP series is LV. It even goes to say in COS, that he had red tinged eyes as Tom Riddle. Now, I would not be surprised if LV didn't experiment with vampirism when he was travelling before attempting the take over. Dumbledore did say LV went under various transformations in that time. Now, I have read here where the theory is that LV has put more than powers into Harry, but that he has put a bit of himself, ie brain or flesh through the deflected AK. If that is true, could be bad news for Harry over exactly what transformations LV played around with. Ducking fast....................................................................... As for Dumbledore, in the books he gets outside. Maybe not as much as Snape that I can recall. But he was at Quiddich in book 4 when Harry fell. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jakejensen at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 20:30:07 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:30:07 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Ron and Harry were ushered in there is useless as evidence for him > being a vampire, simply because we know he has kept a fire going in > his office at other times. To me, the best evidence for him being a > vampire is how Lupin makes the class write an essay on vampires not > long after Snape had made them do one on werewolves... That REALLY is > fishy :-). Combine this with Rowling's batlike descriptions of > Snape's appearance and the way he glides through the corridors, and > you have a case. Personally I am not so sure Snape is a vampire, but > I am keeping Lupin's vampire essay in the back of my mind... > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html "Useless?" If you read my original post you will see that this scene is not meant to be the end all on the Snape is a vampire theory, but rather, additional evidence. That being the case, I can't see why it is "useless." We know it "is" cold in the basement (the canon says they are shivering it is so cold). It may be September, but it is apparently cold and so cold that HP and McGonagall both look to the fireplace upon entering the office. Moreover, the fact that Snape lights a fire in book 3 is exactly the point. It's not that vampire's prefer cold it is that they don't feel tempature. Snape doesn't feel the temp. In book 3 when Snape has a fire going he ultimately uses it to communicate with Lupin. A fire is used for more than temp in the wizard world. And he may keep fires going (as some have pointed out, he has his own students to think about) most of the time. The point is that he doesn't seem to personally care about the temp. Jake From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 21:01:57 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:01:57 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040103091407.025d9370@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tanya Swaine 87966 wrote: > Tanya now. > > I had intended to not say this, but going to risk it. The only person with > red eyes so far in the HP series is LV. It even goes to say in COS, that > he had red tinged eyes as Tom Riddle. Now, I would not be surprised if LV > didn't experiment with vampirism when he was travelling before attempting > the take over. Dumbledore did say LV went under various transformations in > that time. "K": I'll risk saying it. Voldemort is the number one vampire. I'd find it hard to believe he never experimented with vampirism. IMO that's the Albania connection. Tanya: > Now, I have read here where the theory is that LV has put more than powers > into Harry, but that he has put a bit of himself, ie brain or flesh through > the deflected AK. If that is true, could be bad news for Harry over > exactly what transformations LV played around with. > > Ducking > fast................................................................. ...... "K": Ducking? Is that really so far fetched? Who knows what Voldemort shared with Harry besides the ability to talk with snakes. I'm not saying Voldy imparted any vampiric abilites but Voldy is multi- talented. Surely he passed on more than snake talk. Tanya: > As for Dumbledore, in the books he gets outside. Maybe not as much as > Snape that I can recall. But he was at Quiddich in book 4 when Harry fell. "K": I hate to beat a dead horse but some vampires can tolerate the sunlight. I believe it was Anne who mentioned Dumbledore and vampires. Well, some vampires have red hair and blue eyes. Just thought I'd pass that along. ;-) Koinonia From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Fri Jan 2 21:14:19 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:14:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87969 "K": I hate to beat a dead horse but some vampires can tolerate the sunlight. I believe it was Anne who mentioned Dumbledore and vampires. Well, some vampires have red hair and blue eyes. Just thought I'd pass that along. ;-) **Anne** Yeah, I was the one who came up with that little Gem...and actually, that might not be too far fetched...as I said, Daywalkers can go out in the sunlight--because they've given themselves over to (good). I think half-vamps can too (Dhampire is the term for those)... And Tanya is right...Dumble is at the match at book three when the Dementors show up, although if I wanted to be a pain, we could excuse his presence because of the driving thunderstorm the teams were playing in....unless, of course, I remembered that wrong **very likely since I don't have my books here with me at work...^^;** Again...not likely...but possible if I'm remembering my facts correctly... Anne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 21:22:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:22:20 -0000 Subject: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) In-Reply-To: <000d01c3cca4$d5575880$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87970 Joj wrote: > Harry was certainly wrong to go in Snapes pensive, no question about it. I hardly think, however, that Harry's offense is worse than anything Snape has done to him. > > Snape is the worst kind of bully. He dosen't bully adults or equals of any kind. He bullies children who has he has certain control of because of his job. That's a coward in my book. Nothing he has done for the Order or against Voldemort makes his bullying ok. > > I hope Harry does apologize to Snape. It will give us just one more example of how much better of a person Harry is than Snape. > > > Joj, who enjoys the character of Snape, but sees his faults for what they are. Without apologizing for Snape (whose faults I recognize though he's my favorite character), his is not the *worst* kind of bullying. That dubiuos distinction is reserved for Umbridge, who physically abuses students. Filch, though not a professor, would torture students if he could, and Imposter!Moody punished Draco by turning him into a ferret. There are degrees of abuse here, and Snape does at least limit himself to intimidation and ridicule. I wish that, as someone mentioned a while back, that we could see him with the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs. I very much doubt that he abused Cedric Diggory, but unfortunately there's no way to know. Carol, who wishes that Snape's knowledge of teaching methods equalled his knowledge of his subject matter, including not just potions but magic in general From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 05:29:04 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:29:04 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: round up the usual suspects ...and one unusual In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87971 Clio: > After rereading my post I must say my prime suspect is Regulus Black. Tlpbupu - new here, HI I don't have my copy of OOTP right now, but is it stated that LV killed Regulus? If not a simpler (if there is such a thing in JKR's world) explaination would be that once LV dissapeared after acting on the prophecy - or part of it as the case may be - that another DE killed him for revenge? From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 2 22:01:21 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:01:21 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: K: > I hate to beat a dead horse but some vampires can tolerate the > sunlight. Anne: > Yeah, I was the one who came up with that little Gem...and actually, that might not be too far fetched...as I said, Daywalkers can go out in the sunlight--because they've given themselves over to (good). I think half-vamps can too (Dhampire is the term for those)... > > And Tanya is right...Dumble is at the match at book three when the Dementors show up, although if I wanted to be a pain, we could excuse his presence because of the driving thunderstorm the teams were playing in....unless, of course, I remembered that wrong **very likely since I don't have my books here with me at work...^^;** Geoff: When I saw this about Dumbledore, my first thought went to PS where there are sharp intakes of breath because Snape is going to referee the Gryffindor v Hufflepuff match ("Nicolas Flamel" chapter) an Dumbledore turns up to watch...... From erikal at magma.ca Fri Jan 2 23:37:46 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:37:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Activism Message-ID: <019701c3d189$6deed800$7a8b1a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 87973 spangb wrote: >I was wondering if the next book will >see a decrease in Hemione's fervour for >elvish welfare. > In OOTP everyone found a little >setback to their beliefs. Harry saw >a different facet of his parents which >he didn't like. Mrs.Weasly must know >that her overweaning care might have >actually harmed Harry. >Like that, after Hermione gets to know >the real evil behaviour of >Kreacher, will her enthusiasm be >dampened? I somehow don't think Kreacher's treachery is going to be the thing to affect Hermione's enthusiasm about SPEW. In fact, JKR goes to the trouble of having Dumbledore say that Hermione was right to treat Kreacher with kindness and that he himself had suggested the same to Sirius (733 UK). This seems to me to validate her beliefs about house-elves more than anything else. I would, of course, like to see her take a more moderate approach to the situation; I just don't think this is going to be what does it. Maybe her experience with the centaurs will, though. I would hope that after her encounter with them in the forest she would realize how badly she handled the situation, and this perhaps could lead her to re-examine her assumptions about other races. One can always hope, in any case. After all, this sub-theme about the other magical races will have to come to a head at some point. spangb also wrote: >Actually, I am disappointed to find no >marked growth in her charcter book >after book. Something ike what happened >with Ginny and Harry, in book five. No growth in her character? Well I have to say that I disagree with that. Harry's "growth" (if you can call his sudden outbursts of anger and general metamorphosis in into a moody teenager "growth") was very sudden, even jarring, though not unexpected, I suppose, considering the events of GoF. As for Ginny, she needed to be more fleshed out as she'd hardly had any development at all; even in CoS in which she's central to the plot, she never has more than a few lines. Hermione's a very different case. She's central character throughout the series and as such her development can be more gradual. And I do believe there has been development. For one thing, her priorities have changed quite a bit. Remember the bossy eleven-year-old who says they could be "killed -- or worse expelled" in PS? Well, by GoF she's willing to put off studying for exams to help Harry prepare for the third task, and her only comment when he points this out to her is "Don't worry about it" (528 UK). And, similarly, in OoP she states quite firmly that the DA is "much more important than homework" (291). Helping Harry now outweighs her schoolwork in importance. That looks like progress to me. Also, though I know Hermione's abilities in the heat of battle have come under fire, I'd like to suggest that she's also shown improvement there. In PS she panics for a moment when faced with the Devil's Snare. However, in the battle at the DoM in OoP, though she is obviously quite frightened, she manages as well as the others, Harry aside. Yes, she gets put out of commission, but so does everyone except for Harry and Luna. And before this happens she helps Harry out a couple of times: "A hand caught him by the shoulder; he heard Hermione shout, 'Stupefy!' The hand released him at once-" (694 UK). Later, when another DE is about to stupefy Harry, who has lost his wand, Hermione intervenes and then restores Harry's wand to him (696-7 UK). While it isn't exactly ActionHero!Hermione we see at the DoM, we do see her using DADA skills in action rather than just the "cool logic" which is her big contribution in PS in the form of the potions puzzle. To me this suggests some measure of growth and development. Just my two knuts Erika (Wolfraven) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Jan 2 19:59:36 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:59:36 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87974 Tim wrote about Harry not using Sirius' mirror: > I usually wave off JKR's inconsistancies due to the fact she is writing > a work for children. Carol: > Harry *chose* not to use it or even open the package because he was > afraid of endangering Sirius. Tim: Now I must eat crow. I was not with my book when I penned the above responce to Athena. Since then I found the passage ( in the Occlumency (sp?) chapter I believe; once again at work without my books!) In fact JKR foreshadows Black's Death in this passage as well as explaining why Harry so put it out of his mind. Not only did Harry put it in the bottom of his trunk, but Harry associated this action with protecting Sirius from Snape, not V. so the mirror did not come to mind when he was stressed by V. in the action leading to the climax. Tim (blushing heavily and crawling under the desk) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 22:52:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:52:01 -0000 Subject: Just suppose Snape is at the heart of it all In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87975 "karenreiduk" wrote: > We know for a fact that Snape was a trusted Death Eater because he > has the Dark Mark. Carol responds: I, too, am very curious about when and why Snape left the Deat Eaters. However, I'm not sure that the Dark Mark can be interpreted as a mark of trust. I think it's more of a brand forced onto iniitiates to keep them loyal. It informs them when they're "called" an tortures them when they ignore the call. Snape was quite young when he joined the DEs--I would guess 18 or 19--and had not yet had time to prove his loyalty. Karenreiuk again: > Voldemort hatches his Herod-like plan (we know that the prophecy was > overheard before Harry was born in July and that Voldemort > doesn't visit Godrick's Hollow until Halloween which was 3 > months later). Carol responds: Do we know that the prophecy was made before Harry's birth? Can you quote me the canon that gives the date? Also, I was under the impression that Harry was fifteen months old, not three months old, when his parents were killed. He's referred to somewhere as being a year old when his parents are killed; that would be twelve months old on July 31 and fiteen months on October 31. Carol, with apologies for ignoring the theoretical aspects of this post. I'm interested in getting the facts straight first. From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Jan 2 20:22:36 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:22:36 -0000 Subject: Blood in Paper (was:Umbridge a DE?/Trelawney a future Voldemort Target?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87976 Athena: > BTW, has anyone wondered about all the reams of paper that Harry > signed in his own blood that Umbridge has? > And since Harry didn't mention his torture to Dumbledore or > McGonagall possibly in trying to protect them from Umbridge's wrath, > he may just have left himself open for really vile black magic being > performed against him. Because he "voluntarily" wrote in his own > blood. Yes. And since (as I remember, not with book now) she used a particular pen for the task, I wonder about the pen storing or redirecting blood else where. Makes me think of Tom Riddle's diary. But wasn't it ink, not blood, that issued forth from the diary when Harry stabbed it with the fang? Voldemort had at one time use for Harry's blood. Does he still? Tim From crystalgazer1776 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 20:25:40 2004 From: crystalgazer1776 at yahoo.com (crystalgazer1776) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:25:40 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang in Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87977 Berit wrote: > I still find it very odd that Durmstrang's in Norway or Sweden. > Both the name of the school (German-sounding) and the name of its > students (Slavic-sounding) are very foreign to the Scandinavian > language. Jekatiska: > I agree. Whatever way you look at it, the names do not fit > Scandinavia. Durmstrang doesn't accept students who are not pure blood. If I remember correctly. It is possible that Durmstrang takes all pure blood wizards from Eastern Europe, Germany and Scandinavia. If they do not accept muggle born students then they would have a smaller population of magical students to choose from. From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Jan 2 22:12:12 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:12:12 -0000 Subject: Planning the future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87978 Spangb: > Thinking about Harry, I was stuck by the fact that he doesn't > make any plans about the future. Leave planning, he doesn't even > think about future to know how events might turn up. He blithely goes > on, reacting to events that happen. > ...will he start thinking about what might happen, how he might defeat > Voldemort, make plans, learn new skills, prepare himself? Or will he > just wait for Voldemort to turn up and rely on last minute luck and > courage under fire? As the others have noted some of it is due to Harry's youth. Along those lines, Harry is new to the WW. Before he probably wanted to be a pilot when he grew up so he could fly away from the Dursleys. Since becoming a wizard, he has not had a lot of time and contact with the WW to explore what jobs are possible, to imagine a future as a wizard. Except maybe as a pro Quiddich player. But also Harry may be a reactive type. The kind of person who in Chess plays the black pieces best; who in boxing is a counter puncher. Tim From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Jan 2 22:19:56 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:19:56 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87979 Alina: > So I think Snape was giving Neville a hard time simply so that he > could at a moment's notice resume his double-agent activities > without raising suspicion from V and Co. So if Snape is Malfoy's lap dog, as Sirius says, would he be bullying Neville and Harry for Draco benefit? That is to insure this behavior is reported to Lucius? Tim From mauranen at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 22:32:01 2004 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:32:01 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: DD plant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87980 Phil wrote: > My only problem with my theory is OoP Chapter 'Educational Decree > #24'page 323 UK edition, where Umbridge is questioning Snape on how > long he has taught at Hogwarts and he replies 'Fourteen years'. > This reply contradicts the Lexicon, can 15 years be supported from > other canon. Harry is 15+ in OoP. > Could Snape be lying to Umbridge about his length of service? > Why would he need to lie about this? He doesn't lie about it. Would Snape have been teaching at Hogwarts before James and Lily died an Sirius went to Azkaban, Sirius would have known he was there, which he didn't. In PoA in the scene in the Shrieking Shack Lupin tells him and he is suprised. Jekatiska From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Jan 2 23:35:56 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:35:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion Message-ID: <79.1fe92fd0.2d275a5c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87981 In a message dated 1/1/2004 10:46:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Meri (meriaugust at yahoo.com) writes: Yes, but what about Bellatrix LeStrange or Andromeda Tonks? They are all sisters, and we have no cannon as to which is older. ************* Sherrie here: I don't have my book with me, but I just re-re-reread this part a couple of nights ago. IIRC, the text specifies the order in which the Black sisters appear on the tapestry. Generally, when a family tree is represented, the children of each generation are listed in birth order, from left to right, oldest to the left. For some reason, I seem to recall (and I'm the first to admit I could be wrong here) that the order ran Bellatrix, Andromeda, Narcissa. Anyone have the book handy? Sherrie (who OUGHT to be memorizing Tennessee Williams...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanelupin at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 23:42:33 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:42:33 -0000 Subject: Just suppose Snape is at the heart of it all In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87982 Karenreiuk wrote: >>Voldemort hatches his Herod-like plan (we know that the prophecy was overheard before Harry was born in July and that Voldemort doesn't visit Godrick's Hollow until Halloween which was 3 months later).<< Carol responded: >Do we know that the prophecy was made before Harry's birth? Can you quote me the canon that gives the date? Also, I was under the impression that Harry was fifteen months old, not three months old, when his parents were killed. He's referred to somewhere as being a year old when his parents are killed; that would be twelve months old on July 31 and fiteen months on October 31.< KathyK: OoP, Chapter 37 "The Lost Prophechy" (US edition 841): "I did," said Dumbledore. "On a cold, wet night *sixteen years ago,* in a room above the bar at the Hog's Head Inn." (*emphasis* mine) At the end of OoP, we are approaching Summer and Harry's birthday when he will turn sixteen. So if Dumbledore did in fact actually meet Trelawney sixteen years ago, it could be before Harry was born. If this were all we had, there could be a question as to whether the prophecy was made before or after Harry's birth since sixteen years could be somewhat vague. But that's not all. The prophecy itself answers the question. At the end: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord *will be* born as the seventh month dies." (Emphasis *again* mine) It seems pretty clear the prophecy was made before Harry was born. Trelawney's prophecy indicates that the one with the power has yet to be born. Coupling that with Dumbledore's statement that she made the prediction sixteen years ago, I think there's little room for doubt about the prophecy being made before Harry's birth. And Harry was fifteen months when LV attacked. There are plenty references to this being the case in the series. For instance, Hagrid says to Harry in PS/SS (SS 55): "All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Halloween ten years ago. You was just a year old." >Carol, with apologies for ignoring the theoretical aspects of this post. I'm interested in getting the facts straight first.< KathyK, who is very fond of fact-straightening From mauranen at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 22:43:33 2004 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:43:33 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87983 > vmonte replies to Mr. Jones terrific post: > > The Quidditch positions may also be symbolic. If Ron becomes team > captain, then he will lead an army of children (he will be their > strategist). Also, Ron's position is Keeper, so he will act as a > goalie to block shots (or the shot that is heading for Harry). Ron > may sacrifice himself and take a fatal hit for Harry. > > Harry's the "Seeker" so he will be busy chasing one thing Voldemort > or the "golden snitch"--perhaps symbolic for an OOTP traitor. It's > interesting that the "golden snitch" has wings... > This could go on and on.... Suppose we will then have to allow a position for Hermione on the Quidditch team. ;) Hope not, as she doesn't seem too keen herself. And what about Neville? But I like your Quidditch theory. Poor Ron... Jekatiska From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 22:18:55 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:18:55 -0000 Subject: Was Quirrell really a willing participant or struggling against Voldemort ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87984 Sorry this may be a stupid question but was Quirrell a willing follower of Voldemort or was he struggling against the dark side? The reason why I ask is because I reviewed the first Potter book and I noticed that at the end of the book Harry says to Quirrell: "But I heard you a few days ago, sobbing--I thought Snape was threatening you..." For the first time, a spasm of fear flitted across Quirell's face. "Sometimes," he said, "I find it hard to follow my master's instructions--he is a great wizard and I am weak--" page 290 U.S. version Is it possible that Quirrell was attempting to fight off Voldemort, but in the end was not able to? Thanks, vmonte From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Fri Jan 2 22:18:53 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:18:53 -0000 Subject: Regulus and his secret mission (was: The eavesdropper) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87985 > Tlpbupu > > I don't have my copy of OOTP right now, but is it stated that LV > killed Regulus? If not a simpler (if there is such a thing in JKR's > world) explaination would be that once LV dissapeared after acting > on the prophecy - or part of it as the case may be - that another DE > killed him for revenge? Julia: Ok, here it is the passage from the book: 'Oh, no,' said Sirius. 'No, he [Regulus] was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death.' So... He was murdered because he'd panicked and hadn't wanted to do something... Maybe it was conected with the prophecy? As someone stated earlier in this topic he might have been afraid that his job could be connected with his family via Potters. But what was he asked to do? Any ideas? Julia From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Jan 2 23:48:27 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:48:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office Message-ID: <143.1f6851eb.2d275d4b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87986 In a message dated 1/2/2004 2:29:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, mommystery at hotmail.com writes: another thing to take note of...he might not have lit the fire because he wasn't planning on staying in the office after dealing with Ron and Harry so he would see no need for one. **************8 Sherrie here - Another thought - we've seen in PoA that Snape's fire is connected to the Floo Network (even if only an internal one). Perhaps he doesn't keep a fire in there on a routine basis, to forestall unwelcome intrusions? ("Sybill, what in the Nine Realms are YOU doing here in THAT????" ) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 23:53:39 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:53:39 -0000 Subject: Was Quirrell really a willing participant or struggling against Voldemort ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87987 vmonte wrote: > Sorry this may be a stupid question but was Quirrell a willing > follower of Voldemort or was he struggling against the dark side? Constance Vigilance (me): I think poor Quirrell was a dupe who was "seduced by the dark side". I think by SS/PS, he is a full-fledged member of Crew Voldy. vmonte: > I noticed that at the end of the book Harry says to Quirrell: > > "But I heard you a few days ago, sobbing--I thought Snape was > threatening you..." For the first time, a spasm of fear flitted > across Quirell's face. "Sometimes," he said, "I find it hard to > follow my master's instructions--he is a great wizard and I am weak- -" > page 290 U.S. version > Constance: I think he was afraid of being punished. He resisted the assault of the unicorns because of his training that said that unicorns were pure and innocent, and also because he knew that drinking of unicorn's blood leaves one cursed. I imagine that he was punished severely for failing to get the stone in Gringotts and was sobbing because of his choice - suffer more punishment or get the unicorn's curse. But I think he was fully brainwashed into the Dark at that time. Until, of course, Voldy left him, he turned back to the Good Side, exited through the Lake portal and returned to Durmstrang, which, goldurn it, is in Scandinavia! For more information, see my published works. :) Constance Vigilance From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Fri Jan 2 21:33:34 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:33:34 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040103091407.025d9370@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87988 Tanya: > As for Dumbledore, in the books he gets outside. Maybe not as much as > Snape that I can recall. But he was at Quiddich in book 4 when Harry fell. Julia: But it was already night when Harry came back to Hogwarts with dead Cedric. Jazmyn: > Or perhaps there was no fire as it was not a cold time of year? How > many people light a fire in August for warmth anyways? First of all it was September. And now, have any of you ever been in a castle like that? In its dungeons? I've been. And I can only say that there is really freezing. Even in the summer. And also as I remember Hogwarts is located somewhere in Scotland. I doubt that they have warm summers...I think that the season has nothing to do in this case. Berit: > I can't think of any canon to support that Snape and McGonagall > dislike each other either. There IS canon evidence for them being > quite competitive; rivals so to speak. But I get the impression this > is quite good-natured, and that they respect each other. Yeah, I agree with you that they both respect and maybe they even like each other in some way but they are still very official and strict persons. IMHO they try to act calm and official in front of students and this behavior doesnt match to their attitudes. Julia From catportkey at aol.com Sat Jan 3 01:08:49 2004 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:08:49 EST Subject: Fawkes vs. basilisk Message-ID: <3f.26597965.2d277021@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87989 If everything is killed when it looks at the basilisk's eyes, why is it that Fawkes survived when his beak gorged out the eyes of the basilisk? Book 2, pages 318-319 Pookie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From derek at rhinobunny.com Sat Jan 3 02:21:15 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:21:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes vs. basilisk In-Reply-To: <3f.26597965.2d277021@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040102181838.02669970@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87990 Pookie wrote: >If everything is killed when it looks at the basilisk's eyes, why is it that >Fawkes survived when his beak gorged out the eyes of the basilisk? >Book 2, pages 318-319 Derek: The simplest answer would be to speculate that not literally *everything* is killed when it looks at the basilisk's eyes. Phoenixes' relationship to life and death are different than other creatures. Perhaps something about them renders them immune to the basilisk's effect. (Or perhaps Fawkes, being a smart bird, knows of the basilisk's power, and closes his eyes when striking at the basilisk.) - Derek From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 03:28:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:28:37 -0000 Subject: Quirrel's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > Carol: > > Odd, since Dumbledore addresses all of his employees and > former > > > students by their given names. Maybe he never speaks directly to > > > Quirrel in Harry's hearing? > > Ayra: > > Ok, I'm totally confused at this--what are you talking about? What > hearing? > > Ginger: > > I think "hearing" was meant to mean that Dumbledore didn't address > Quirrel when Harry was there to hear it. > > I did the same thing. The brain went to the OoP hearing before I > reread the sentance. > > Ginger My apologies to both of you. I'll try to be more precise in my diction (though if I'd been referring to an actual hearing, I would have used "at," not "in"). Yes, I did mean when Harry is present to hear him (Dumbledore). The book, despite the third-person narrator, is after all mostly presented from his POV. So let me rephrase my question. Setting aside the matter of Harry's presence, which we can take as a given, can anyone recall an instance of Dumbledore speaking directly to Quirrell and, if so, did he use Quirell's first name (his usual form of address to his employees)? All I really want to know is whether the guy has a first name that we know of. That would make determining his nationality and possible connection to Durmstrang easier. Carol From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 03:58:31 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:58:31 -0000 Subject: Regulus and his secret mission (was: The eavesdropper) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: Julia writes: > So... He (Regulus Black) was murdered because he'd panicked and hadn't wanted to do > something... Maybe it was conected with the prophecy? As someone stated > earlier in this topic he might have been afraid that his job could be > connected with his family via Potters. But what was he asked to do? > Any ideas? > > Julia Maybe there were plans to attack or torture Sirius for information on the Potters whereabouts, perhaps before it was known that Peter Pettigrew was their secret keeper, or even before the fidelus charm was done. Blood is blood, after all, and maybe Reg had a soft spot for his prodigal brother. I also like the theory that Reg was the eavesdropper. Perhaps he was going to be sent to torture Sybill Trelawny in an attempt to discover the rest of the prophecy and he got squeamish. It seems that LV isn't all that clear when it comes to the rules of prohecy, and may not know that Trelawny's particular brand of prediction leaves her without memory of what she has predicted. But then again, if Reg was the eavesdropper then he MAY have been important enough for LV to kill himself. Meri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 04:48:27 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 04:48:27 -0000 Subject: Quirrel and Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87993 > > Carol: > > ... To me the relevant points are that it's in an area farther > > north than Hogwarts, which means it must be in either Scandinavia or > > European Russia, and it's in a mountainous region with lots of > > lakes. That second point suggests not Sweden, Norway, or the > > Murmansk Peninsula but the area of Russia just north of St. > > Petersburg, which has both mountains and two very large lakes. > > ...edited... > bboy_mn: > > This is a subject I have given a great deal of thought to and done a > lot of research on. Murmansk is in > the general area of world land mass that is considered Scandinavia, > not to mention the fact that it is physically connected to Scandinavia. > Using geographic descriptions in the book, the location could easily > be northern Finland, Sweden, or Norway. BUT and that is a BIG BUT, > Durmstrang is not a Nordic or Scandinavian school. Scandinavia appears > to have it's own tradition of Magic, and I would therefore assume, it > has it's own sparate schools. It's clear that Durmstrang is one of the > major European schools, and Russia just happens to be in Europe. That > is, Western Russia is in a region that is typically considered Eastern > Europe. Carol: Yes. I agree with you. I think it's in Russia, not Scandinavia (Igor Karkaroff, like Antonin Dolohov, is a Russian name) and I've yet to see the quotation indicating that it's in Scandinavia, so that part of your argument makes no difference to me at this point. (I'm not being rude, just indicating that we're actually in agreement here that Durmstrang may be in Russia.) > > The name of the headmaster of Durmstang appears to be a Russian, > Germanic, or Slavic sounding name. The students in the school have > names etc... that strongly imply an Eastern European connection. > Example, Krun from Bulgaria. For the record Bulgaria borders Greece, > and is therefore quite a bit farther south than the Murmansk > Peninsula, but none the less would be considered Eastern Europe. > Murmansk has geography similar to Finland, and Finland has 60,000 > lakes. Any look at a map will show that Murmansk also has several very > substantial as well as many many minor lakes. > > Population is sparse, there are very few towns and villages, the land > is wild, forested, and undeveloped, and there are very few roads. > > In conclusion, the only location that I can find that is far enough > north and yet still considered Europe, while at the same time being > free from the prying eyes of muggles is the Murmansk Peninsula. Carol: Obviously you've researched this more than I have, but I still think the area above St. Petersburg is a valid possible location for Durmstrang. Like the Murmansk Peninsula, it's in Russia, is farther north than Britain with long winter nights and all the other Durmstrang attributes, and has both mountains and *very large* lakes, not small ones like those yoou mention on the Murmansk Peninsula. The St. Petersburg area is also somewhat closer than the peninsula to the Slavic countries (Krum's home country of Bulgaria, for one). Anyway, you and I agree that Durmstrang could be in Russia rather than Scandinavia. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just suggesting that the slightly more southern location should be considered as a possible location for Durmstrang. Too far north and there are no towns or settlements at all--it's just too cold even for wizarding villages. I'll yield to anyone who shows me the passage quoting JKR as stating that Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. Till then, I agree with you that it's probably in Russia, but hidden from Muggle eyes through a spell rather than through a location so far north that a student from Bulgaria like Krum would find the cold unbearable. Carol From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sat Jan 3 04:58:18 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:58:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Quirrell really a willing participant or struggling against Voldemort ? Message-ID: <4BC2F8BF.4D5AED3D.4B073798@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 87994 In a message dated 1/2/2004 5:18:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, "vmonte" writes: >Sorry this may be a stupid question but was Quirrell a willing >follower of Voldemort or was he struggling against the dark side? I think he was seduced by the Dark Side. I always think of the movie The Mummy when reading these books -- "It is better to be the right hand of the Devil than in his path." I think that some of the general supporters of LV were just afraid of him. > >Is it possible that Quirrell was attempting to fight off Voldemort, >but in the end was not able to? I thought so. At the beginning at least. Not many people *really* want to join the Dark Side (exceptions in the Potterverse being most of Slytherin house). I don't think Pettigrew was planning on being a Death Eater (speaking of which, he *is* a DE, right? I just can't see him in the inner circle with Lucius and Co.) At the end Quirrel might have been a true blue follower of LV. Dumbledore tells Ginny in CoS that far older and wiser wizards have been tricked by LV (not an exact quote, of course). Oryomai From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 07:20:00 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:20:00 -0000 Subject: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87995 > > > Without apologizing for Snape (whose faults I recognize though he's my > favorite character), his is not the *worst* kind of bullying. That > dubiuos distinction is reserved for Umbridge, who physically abuses > students. Filch, though not a professor, would torture students if he > could, and Imposter!Moody punished Draco by turning him into a ferret. > There are degrees of abuse here, and Snape does at least limit himself > to intimidation and ridicule. I wish that, as someone mentioned a > while back, that we could see him with the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs. > I very much doubt that he abused Cedric Diggory, but unfortunately > there's no way to know. > > Carol, who wishes that Snape's knowledge of teaching methods equalled > his knowledge of his subject matter, including not just potions but > magic in general Sue B: Don't we all! But to be fair, none of the teachers at Hogwarts seems to have any actual teaching qualifications. There are some "natural" teachers such as McGonagall, Flitwick, the emergency teacher Grubbly-Plank and, of course, Lupin, but in real life, even the natural teachers need a little help from training. You have to know more than just your subject. And if you're like Snape, probably better off in research than the classroom, you'd need more than a little help. Hogwarts seems to be, for him at least, a refuge from Voldemort - or perhaps a place where he will be safe while he works against Voldemort under the leadership of Dumbledore. This is not a very good reason for hiring a teacher, but there you are. If there's a WW teachers' college we have never been told about it and just imagine trying to get into a Muggle university to study Potions Education!;-) From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Jan 3 07:26:24 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:26:24 -0000 Subject: Quirrel's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > So let me rephrase my question. Setting aside the matter of Harry's > presence, which we can take as a given, can anyone recall an > instance of Dumbledore speaking directly to Quirrell and, if so, did > he use Quirell's first name (his usual form of address to > his employees)? > All I really want to know is whether the guy has a first name that > we know of. That would make determining his nationality and > possible connection to Durmstrang easier. Dumbledore never addresses Quirrell directly. After Quirrell's defeat, he calls Quirrell "Professor Quirrell" twice, and just "Quirrell" four times, so we have no canon to speak of for the professors first name. Curiously, he calls Harry on saying "Snape" instead of "Professor Snape" just after calling Professor Quirrell nothing but "Quirrell" three times in a row... --Arcum From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 3 07:52:17 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:52:17 -0000 Subject: Just suppose Snape is at the heart of it all In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Do we know that the prophecy was made before Harry's birth? Can you > quote me the canon that gives the date? Geoff: Dumbledore - speaking to Harry after the battle at the Ministry which is in the summer of 1996 approaching the end of Harry's 5th year; it is after OWLs so is in June or July - Harry will be sixteen on 31st July. "'...But the prophecy was made to somebody and that person has the means of recalling it perfectly.' 'Who heard it?' asked Harry, though he thought he knew the answer already. 'I did', said Dumbledore. 'On a cold, wet night sixteen years ago in a room above the bar at the Hog's Head inn.....' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.740 UK edition) Hence Dumbledore heard the prophecy at the turn of 1979/80 six months or so before Harry was born. Carol: > Also, I was under the > impression that Harry was fifteen months old, not three months old, > when his parents were killed. He's referred to somewhere as being a > year old when his parents are killed; that would be twelve months old > on July 31 and fiteen months on October 31. Geoff: He was. I noticed that error in the original post but decided not to pick up on it at that point in time. "'All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came to yer house an'- an' -'" (Hagrid to Harry PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.45 UK edition) Hagrid was slightly out in that Harry was just turning fifteen months. From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Jan 3 08:06:47 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 08:06:47 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: <79.1fe92fd0.2d275a5c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/1/2004 10:46:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Meri > (meriaugust at y...) writes: > Yes, but what about Bellatrix LeStrange or Andromeda Tonks? They > are all sisters, and we have no cannon as to which is older. > > ************* > Sherrie here: > > I don't have my book with me, but I just re-re-reread this part a > couple of nights ago. IIRC, the text specifies the order in which > the Black sisters appear on the tapestry. Generally, when a family > tree is represented, the children of each generation are listed in > birth order, from left to right, oldest to the left. For some > reason, I seem to recall (and I'm the first to admit I could be > wrong here) that the order ran Bellatrix, Andromeda, Narcissa. > > Anyone have the book handy? > Here's the relevant quote: " 'You and Tonks are related?' Harry asked, surprised. 'Oh, yeah, her mother Andromeda was my favourite cousin,' said Sirius, examining the tapestry closely. 'No, Andromeda's not on here either, look -' He pointed to another small round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa. " Oddly, every time this subject comes up, the presence of 3 sisters and the tapestry makes me think of the three fates. I haven't come up with anything concrete on that yet, though... --Arcum From silmariel at telefonica.net Sat Jan 3 12:14:30 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (a_silmariel) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 12:14:30 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 87999 > Geoff wrote: > When I saw this about Dumbledore, my first thought went to PS where > there are sharp intakes of breath because Snape is going to referee > the Gryffindor v Hufflepuff match ("Nicolas Flamel" chapter) an > Dumbledore turns up to watch...... Vampires (not necesary Daywalkers, see John Polidori 'The Vampire' or J.Sheridan Le Fanu 'Carmilla') can walk in daylight, can simulate breath and eating, they can even age, but... What sense would have DD being a Vampire? What would explain, or how would it further the plot? My canditate for a vampire is Karkarov, but we could open a poll. silmariel From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 3 13:28:29 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:28:29 -0000 Subject: Fawkes vs. basilisk In-Reply-To: <3f.26597965.2d277021@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: Pookie: > If everything is killed when it looks at the basilisk's eyes, why is it that > Fawkes survived when his beak gorged out the eyes of the basilisk? > Book 2, pages 318-319 Geoff: I raised an identical question under the thread title "Fawkes and the Basilisk" in (I think) September. If you go to message 81250 and follow through from that point, there is a fairly lengthy discussion. From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 3 15:22:26 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:22:26 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes vs. basilisk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d20d$680d3650$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88001 > Pookie: > > If everything is killed when it looks at the basilisk's eyes, why > is it that > > Fawkes survived when his beak gorged out the eyes of the basilisk? > > Book 2, pages 318-319 Iggy de-cloaking for a second: Has anyone considered that, considering their incredible healing properties, Fawkes's tears probably protect him from the gaze of the basilisk? (They may not be able to reverse the petrification, but they could protect you from it.) Iggy McSnurd From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:23:52 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:23:52 -0000 Subject: FILK: A Dumbledore Army Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88002 A Dumbledore Army (OOP, Chap. 27) To the tune of The Brotherhood of Man, from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Dedicated to Loony Hear a MIDI at http://www.hamienet.com/cat329.html THE SCENE: The Headmaster's Office. Before FUDGE and his minions, DUMBLEDORE offers a mock-confession to save HARRY from expulsion DUMBLEDORE (spoken): Well, the game is up: would you like a written confession from me, Corenlius ? or will a filksong before these witnesses suffice? (music): Now you may think that Potter here Was forming clubs in secret And plotting deeds so dastardly, That few could dare to speak it. But insofar as he's concerned All charges you must drop. For you shall learn that this fell scheme Started right at the top There is a Dumbledore Army, A malevolent Dumbledore Army, A troop of sociopaths To fight your heliopaths As my own Dumbledore Army This list of student invitees I'm a-hoping to make them recruitees Oh, they'd be proud to be in my conspiracy The big bad Dumbledore Army! HARRY (spoken): No, Professor Dumbledore! DUMBLEDORE (spoken): Be quiet, Harry, or I am afraid you will have to leave my office .Now, Cornelius, stop and think .. (music, to FUDGE) Although I this confession make Here's one thing you should know Though you have plans to bring me in I quietly won't go. Your placing me in Azkaban. Would merely waste my time I'd simply have to hurt you then To prove to you that I'm .In CHORUS OF PORTRAITS: In . DUMBLEDORE: With CHORUS OF PORTRAITS: .With DUMBLEDORE: .The . CHORUS OF PORTRAITS: .The . DUMBLEDORE & CHORUS .Dumbledore Army Dedicated to causing harm, are we DUMBLEDORE: Oh, we are going to seize Of all of your Ministries CHORUS OF PORTRAITS: With the great Dumbledore Army! FUDGE (spoken, stunned): No kidding! (music) Is there really a Dumbledore .. PERCY, UMBRIDGE & DAWLISH (backup): Yes, there's a Dumble . FUDGE: .Army? PERCY, UMBRIDGE & DAWLISH (backup): There is a Dumble FUDGE: A belligerent Dumbledore Army? PERCY, UMBRIDGE & DAWLISH: Oh, yes! Oh, yes! He takes such umbrage `Gainst Fudge & Umbridge FUDGE: He's formed a Dumbledore Army PERCY, UMBRIDGE & DAWLISH: Oh, yes! This list of students that we've seized Is a-proving that Dumble is displeased FUDGE, PERCY, UMBRIDGE & DAWLISH Oh, aren't you proud to be Smashing conspiracies Of big bad Dumbledore's Army? FUDGE (to DUMBLEDORE): Oh, you'll soon be kneeling Time to send you reeling Down with Dumble-dealing Oh, Albus! You, I got you (To PERCY, UMBRIDGE, DAWLISH & Shacklebolt) You, go get him . McGONAGALL (scat singing) Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope skeetle-at-de-op-de-dum (The orchestral bridge is staged as a heavily stylized dance sequence, DUMBLEDORE successively stuns each of the Ministry representatives, starting with DAWLISH, then PERCY, UMBRIDGE, Shacklebolt - exchanging a wink before doing so ? and finally FUDGE) McGONAGALL (with CHORUS as back-up) That pompous Min'stry drip will be Quite a-sorry he dared to cross Dumbly Ol' Fudge is gonna be livin' in infamy Due to the Army .. CHORUS Soldiers! McGONAGALL Soldiers! CHORUS Sailors! McGONAGALL Sailors! CHORUS Seekers! McGONAGALL Seekers! DUMBLEDORE (to HARRY, with antiphonal choral backup) Now, please remember to, Harry Keep a-learning all your Occlumency Oh, I'm so proud to see you've made reality Of the great Dumble .. ARMANDO DIPETT (scat singing) Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope skeetle-at-de-op-de-dum DUMBLEDORE, McGONAGALL & CHORUS Dumble! PHINEAS NIGELLUS (scat singing) Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope skeetle-at-de-op-de-dore DUMBLEDORE, McGONAGALL & CHORUS Dumble! DILYS DERWENT (scat singing) Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope skeetle-at-de-op-de-dore DUMBLEDORE, McGONAGALL & CHORUS Dumble! FAWKES (scat singing) Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope skeetle-at-de-op-de-dore ALL: Dumbledore Army! Yeah! (DUMBLEDORE grasps Fawkes' tail and vanishes in a flash of fire. The MINISTERS regain consciousness. FUDGE dismisses McGONAGALL, HARRY & Marietta.) PHINEAS (spoken): You know, Minister, I disagree with Dumbledore on many counts .but you cannot deny that he's got style. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (have you seen our New Years' update?) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 06:32:59 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:32:59 -0000 Subject: Is Peter (wormtail) a pure blood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88003 Sorry if this is mentioned in one of the books and I never caught it. Is Peter a pure blood or a "mud blood?" The only reason why I ask is that Collin Creevey sort of reminds me of Wormtail. In Snape's pensieve scene Peter seemed to worship and idolize James, much like Collin venerates Harry. Collin reminds me of a stalker. You know those crazy fans that at first idolize a person (movie star, TV personality, famous wizard, etc.) but then inexplicably turn against their idol. Peter venerated James at first.... From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sat Jan 3 09:51:27 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:51:27 -0000 Subject: Location of Durmstrang (was:Re: Quirrel and Scandinavia?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88004 Carol: > I'll yield to anyone who shows me the passage quoting JKR as stating > that Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. Till then, I agree with you that > it's probably in Russia, but hidden from Muggle eyes through a spell > rather than through a location so far north that a student from > Bulgaria like Krum would find the cold unbearable. Julia: Yeah...When I read the GOF for the first time I was sure that Durmstrang as well as most of it's staff and students come from somewhere in Russia. What's interesting all names connected with this school are Slavic except from 'Durmstrang'. Durmstrang is an interesting word. 'Durm und Strang' is the name of Nazi opera which propagated pure bood and also 'Sturm und Drang' is the trend in romanticism in Germany (conected with Goethe and Byron). I'm wondering why JKR gave such a name for the school which comes from Russia (or other Slavic country...) I cant find any canon which can support the idea of where Durmstrang is located. But I hardly believe that it's somewhere in Scandinavia. All tips lead us to Russia... Julia From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 12:42:50 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 12:42:50 -0000 Subject: Quirrel's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88005 arcum42 wrote: Dumbledore never addresses Quirrell directly. After Quirrell's defeat, he calls Quirrell "Professor Quirrell" twice, and just Quirrell" four times, so we have no canon to speak of for the professors first name. Curiously, he calls Harry on saying "Snape" instead of "Professor Snape" just after calling Professor Quirrell nothing but "Quirrell" three times in a row... vmonte responds: In the movie Quirell's first name is listed in the credits as Quirenius. His First name is not listed in the books. vmonte :) From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 3 15:15:08 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:15:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <001101c3d20c$60178320$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88006 {silmariel says} Vampires (not necesary Daywalkers, see John Polidori 'The Vampire' or J.Sheridan Le Fanu 'Carmilla') can walk in daylight, can simulate breath and eating, they can even age, but... What sense would have DD being a Vampire? What would explain, or how would it further the plot? My canditate for a vampire is Karkarov, but we could open a poll {Anne Responds:} Well, to be honest, I was more putting out an idea that is very far fetched more for fun than anything else...in other words, going for someone other then the "usual suspects". I'm well aware that the theory is highly unlikely, but you would have to admit, it would certinaly lend to the shock factor, and it would by no means be expected....something JK Rowling likes to do to her readers on a regular basis (Lupin a werewolf, Rita Skeeter a beetle animagus, Scabbers being Peter, and also the true murderer as opposed to Sirius, etc)... I will admit another hole in Dumbly as a Vamp is that JK Rowling really does give more obvious hints when she's trying to point you to certain conclusions, and if you know your mythology, geography and language bases, you'll be able to figure out who it really is. Dumbly doesn't seem to have any indications--his name has no references to vampirism, he's not from a geographical location that tradition says has the little bloodsuckers, and (as I knew I must have missed), he has been seen out during the day...about the only thing that could point to it is his age--150 years at the start of the books--which could be the result of many other things, from potions, to spells, to the theory that wizards have a longer lifespan than your average muggle. But it would be fun to explore the possibility.... Anne (Who will consider *any* possibility...*g*....) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 15:24:43 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:24:43 -0000 Subject: Time travel--Dumdledore and Ron......... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88007 This is for the people who think that time travel will happen again... Dumbledore seems to know more than he should at times throughout the series. I do not think that he is a seer, but what if he knows certain events because he has lived through them already. (I know that at times he seems to make mistakes and he admits to those mistakes.) But, lets say that future events from book 6 and 7 have already taken place--and it ends badly for the OOTP. There are many causualties on both sides. At least one of the Weasley children survives (Ron Weasley?). Ron has lost most of his family and perhaps Harry as well. Dumbledore then hands Ron the time travel hour glass and tells him to go way back in time to change certain events. (Dumbledore tells Ron a secret he has never told anyone.) Ron goes way back in time, goes to Hogwarts school as a student again, but his name is now Dumbledore (DD did have red hair once right?). He could even go farther back than that if he is also Nicolas Flamel since he could live for quite some time. (Flamel has a wife right? Could it be MaGonagall--aka Hermione?) It would be funny if MaGonagall gave Hermione the hour glass in the 3rd book to later prepare her for real time travel. (Rowling even turns Hermione as a cat in the series--a clue that she is MaGonagall!--this idea could only work if the kids learn how to become animagi in book 6 or 7 (just like James Potter's crew did). Ron grows up (and watches events unfold, trying all the while to alter certain events along the way. Since he is changing history certain events will unfold the way they originally did while other events will change the historical timeline. (I hate movies and books about time travel so I'm giving this idea my best shot.) Many people believe that Dumbledore is playing puppet master with the kids- -and he may. Luna is a true Seer and knows what Ron will become, hence: "Weasley is our King!" Dumbledore believes that Snape is loyal and maybe he really knows this. (But DD may change something in the timeline inadvertantly losing Snape's loyalty--DD may be surprised in the end by Snape.) Ron also has a habit in the series to joke around and say things that actually happen later on. Could this be a clue from Rowling about Ron's identity? I'm too tired to think anymore, vmonte From allysmom at wowway.com Sat Jan 3 16:58:21 2004 From: allysmom at wowway.com (sleepingdragonzz) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:58:21 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88008 I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, but refused. She does seem to know a great deal about the magical world, even though she would rather pretend that it didn't exist. Wouldn't it be interesting if Aunt Petunia had some magical powers that she has tried to "squash" out through the years? As we all know, you can't "squash" out the magical power of someone, even though Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia had tried to do so with Harry. Anyone have any thoughts?? From bewitchedbyhp at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 05:39:57 2004 From: bewitchedbyhp at yahoo.com (bewitchedbyhp) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:39:57 -0000 Subject: Blood in Paper (was:Umbridge a DE?/Trelawney a future Voldemort Target?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim" wrote: > > BTW, has anyone wondered about all the reams of paper that Harry > > signed in his own blood that Umbridge has? Interesting theory...did anyone else feel "cheated" by Umbridge getting off so easily? True, she was a bit touched in the head after her escapade with the centaurs, but to be allowed to just run off without punishment?! I wanted to reach into the OoP book and wring her neck every time she tortured Harry with the "blood lines". How evil! There has to be more to her than just a staunch supporter of Fudge and the MoM. She rivals up there with Voldemort. Wonder if she'll show up in the last 2 books, or if she's gone for good? Bewitched by HP From allysmom at wowway.com Sat Jan 3 19:08:46 2004 From: allysmom at wowway.com (sleepingdragonzz) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:08:46 -0000 Subject: Is Peter (wormtail) a pure blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Sorry if this is mentioned in one of the books and I never caught it. > Is Peter a pure blood or a "mud blood?" > > The only reason why I ask is that Collin Creevey sort of reminds me > of Wormtail. In Snape's pensieve scene Peter seemed to worship and > idolize James, much like Collin venerates Harry. > > Collin reminds me of a stalker. You know those crazy fans that at > first idolize a person (movie star, TV personality, famous wizard, > etc.) but then inexplicably turn against their idol. > > Peter venerated James at first.... >From allysmom: Yes, there are similarities between Peter and Colin, but I rather think that all of LV's followers are purebloods. Look at all the deatheaters..Crabbe,Goyle,Malfoy,the Lestrange, etc. Although, no mention was ever made of the deatheaters' mark on wormtail's arm. Why would LV want "mudbloods" in his little circle?? Wormtail does seem to be a bit inadequate as a wizard (as Neville was...also a pureblood). I would guess that Wormtail is also a pureblood. But, I suppose we'll find out later..... From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jan 3 20:11:33 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:11:33 -0000 Subject: heraldry / Inheritance / Kreachur / Albania Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88011 JoTwo Summerill wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87859 : << I saw an interesting discussion once that JKR sometimes picks names for characters because the heraldry fits. The specific example being quoted was the Evans coat of arms, which is a golden lion on a blue background. The crest is a stag. This obviously fits Lily, as she was a Gryffindor and married James, who was a stag animagus. >> [The post also discussed arms of Snape, Pettigrew, Dumbledore, Brown, Finnigan, Black, Lestrange, Wilkes, Avery, Rosier] You may be absolutely right about what JKR was thinking. However, armorial bearings goes by inheritance rather than by surname. I mean, families who have the same surname but are not related to each other would have different arms. It seems to me that at least Evans, Brown, and Black are common enough names that there would be multiple armigerous families for each of those names. Steve bboy_mn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87872 : << Since it has come up again, I thought I would refer interested parties back to previous discussion regarding what will happen to Grimauld Place and the rest of the Black Family Estate. >> I just had a New Idea about the Black Family Estate. I don't remember who said "the last of the Blacks": was it someone in a position to know whether Regulus had fathered a child before he died? Just how knowledgeable is that tapestry: if he had secretly married a girl of whom his parents would not have approved, would the marriage automagically show on the tapestry, or does someone have to tell the news to tapestry? spangb wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87944 : << after Hermione gets to know the real evil behaviour of Kreacher, will her enthusiasm [for Elvish Welfare] be dampened? >> Kreachur's behavior is very much like Dobby's behaviour: each felt a great loyalty to someone other than his owner, and connived to help the person to whom he was loyal at the expense of his owner. Meri August wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87958 : << Can anyone think of a good reason why LV would choose Albania as his hideout, bot before SS and between then and GoF? >> I think LV didn't exactly *choose* Albania as his hideout. I think there was one part of one forest that happened to be in Albania to which he was 'magnetically' pulled whenever he was disembodied: he could resist the pull only when he was in a body (this does give me a problem explaining how he could have left Albania with Quirrell if he didn't possess Quirrell until after the Gringotts break-in). I figure that he is pulled back to that location because it is the place where he did the spell that actually made him immortal. I figure he had already made himself into a red-eyed snake-man during his earlier attempts at immortality spells. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 20:45:18 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:45:18 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_I_Believe_You=92ll_Lose/Lifelong_Ban_?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88012 I Believe You'll Lose/Lifelong Ban (OOP, Chap. 19) To the tune of Gotta Stop That Man & I Believe In You from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Hear a MIDI at http://www.hamienet.com/cat329.html Dedicated to Ginger THE SCENE: The Quidditch field. For the first game of the season, and RON's debut as Keeper, it's Slytherin vs. Gryffindor. As the two teams take the field, DRACO plots to musically unhinge his opponents ANGELINA (spoken, to RON): All set for the big game? RON (spoken, without much conviction) Ah ? yeah ? wish me luck SLYTHERIN QUIDDITCH TEAM: (spoken, sarcastically) Good luck! (music, aside) Gonna stop their team We're gonna stop that team's goals Through Ron Weasley. Big house of lion We'll see `em by slow inches dyin' Gonna stop, gonna stop, Gonna stop that Ron. That Ron.... (As the game commences, DRACO leads, from atop his broom, the SLYTHERIN CHORUS in a song of his own devising) DRACO: Now there he is. Yes, there's that guy That guy we style "Our King" It will so harass him to Here us say it. So let us all sing, Let us now sing. DRACO & SLYTHERIN CHORUS You have the clumsy Clasp of a Keeper without any clues Yet, there's that snail reflex That cannot Quaffle-entry refuse DRACO Oh, I believe you'll lose I believe you'll lose DRACO & SLYTHERIN CHORUS I see those peasant roots Of one using a bin for a bed. Yet, there's that regal air Of King Charles when losing his head (Chop! Chop!) DRACO Oh, I believe you'll lose I believe you'll lose (Ron is so stunned by the incredible sophistication and wit of DRACO's lyrics that he is unable to concentrate on the game, allowing the SQT to score at will. Fortunately, HARRY grabs the Snitch to secure victory) FRED (to HARRY): Just when my faith in my younger bro Took a tailspin I've but to see your hand grasp the Snitch To know we win, Know we win! (As the TWINS and the GQT congratulate HARRY, DRACO decides the time is ripe to bait them) DRACO You have the swollen Rep of a Seeker who most overrate So I'll bad-mouth your folks And you'll all boil over with hate. HARRY, FRED & GEORGE Oh, we believe you're through We believe you're through (HARRY & GEORGE attack DRACO, as FRED is just barely restrained from doing so by his teammates. Enter UMBRIDGE with the SQT) UMBRIDGE & SLYTHERIN QUIDDITCH TEAM: That's a lifelong ban. That's a lifelong ban. (THE SLYTH CHORUS play Kazoos as UMBRIDGE theatrically unscrolls her latest decree) We'll stop you three We now feel smugly We even can rhyme "fat" and "ugly" Gonna start, gonna start, Gonna start that ban DRACO & UMBRIDGE Oh, I believe you're through SLYTHERIN QUIDDITCH TEAM No longer are you three heroes DRACO & UMBRIDGE Oh, I believe you're through DRACO, UMBRIDGE & SLYTHERIN QUIDDITCH TEAM: It's a lifelong ban! Now we stopped them! Take their brooms! How we stopped them! Got a lifelong ban! Yeah! (EXIT the GQT in total dejection as SLYTHERIN gloats triumphantly) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 20:46:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:46:02 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88013 vmonte wrote: > The Quidditch positions may also be symbolic. > > Harry's the "Seeker" so he will be busy chasing one thing Voldemort > or the "golden snitch"--perhaps symbolic for an OOTP traitor. It's > interesting that the "golden snitch" has wings... Interesting point, only I don't think the snitch symbolizes Voldemort. In American English, "snitch" means tattletale or informant, which could refer to Peter, who revealed the location of the Potters' hideaway or to the person who overheard part of the prophecy and revealed it to Voldemort. Of course, that person could also be Peter, but then we have the problem of why Peter would have been thrown out of the Three Broomsticks. And if the person is Regulus Black, as someone suggested earlier, we have the problem that the informant appears to be dead and, if so, could not be caught, only exposed after the fact, which wouldn't accomplish much. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea of Harry catching the "snitch" in the sense of informant. Does anyone else have ideas on this? Also, does "snitch" have the same meaning (informant or tattletale) in British English as it does in American English? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 20:54:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:54:24 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cestrel_wings" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mommystery2003" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" > > > wrote: > > The fact that there were no embers or anything in the fire is a sign > > that Snape simply does not (or has not recently) use the fire. > > Ces: > > Exactly, it's my opinion that Snape probably wants any students who > > have to come in there to be as uncomfortable as possible - so he > > probably very rarely has a fire going. > > > But wouldn't Slytherins visit his office also? As we have seen, Snape > clearly favours Slytherins, and I don't think he'd want them to be > uncomfortable. > > Kristin I think Snape is just used to being in the dungeon. Harry (or the narrator) mentions at one point that the Potions classroom is cold. Snape doesn't have to be a vampire to prefer cold to warmth. Might as well call him "Snake" and say he's cold-blooded! It's also possible that, at least until Umbridge took over the Floo Network, he used his fireplace to leave the school on spying missions and preferred to keep it clean and uncluttered. Notice that he summons Lupin by that method in PoA (another of those incidents that makes me wonder how much Snape knows). Whether he's a vampire or not (and I don't think he is), he's undoubtedly brilliant. (BTW, I disagree with the person who suggested that he acquired his knowledge solely by hard work. He has great natural gifts, including logic and the knowledge of a great many hexes before he even entered school. I think that, like Hermione, he has a photographic memory that enabled him to practically reproduce the textbook on his DADA O.W.L.) Carol Carol From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 20:56:41 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:56:41 -0000 Subject: heraldry / Inheritance / Kreachur / Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > << Can anyone think of a good reason why LV would choose Albania as > his hideout, bot before SS and between then and GoF? >> > Rowling may have selected Albania due to a unique circumstance of it oppression, under the rule of Evner Hoxha (one of the 20th Century's many real-life Voldemorts). Beginning in 1967, and contunuing through the collapse of the Communist regime in 1991, Albania's constitution banned the practice of religion in any way shape or form. Hundreds of mosques, and churches (and the few synagogues) were closed and thousands of priests, ministers and clerics were arrested. Owning a Bible or Koran was a criminal offense. Many other regimes have of course persecuted other religions (usually at the behest of their preferred religion), and, in practice, all Communist regimes have more or less strictly circumscribed the practice of faith. However, their constitutions all "guarantee" the freedom of religion, and its practice is allowed (even in North Korea, though under severe scrutiny). Albania is the first and only nation to attempt to openly expunge all forms of religious practice. - CMC From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:02:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:02:28 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang in Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > I believe Durmstrang is suppose to be in Bulgaria. Krum plays for > Bulgaria and Durmstrang sounds like a place in Bulgaria. Here is a > link to a map of Bulgaria so you can see what I mean: > > http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/europe/bulgaria/bulgaria.htm > > Just my two cents, > > Jake Krum is only one student. I don't think we know where the others are from. In any case, Bulgaria is just north or Greece and Turkey and wouldn't fit the criteria for Durmstrang's location (so far north that the nights are longer than they are in Scotland). I hold with Russia (which fits with Karkaroff's nationality) until someone provides the link to JKR's statement that Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. Carol From rredordead at aol.com Sat Jan 3 21:03:09 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:03:09 -0000 Subject: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: <20040101181639.26946.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88017 Mandy here: Even if Harry inherits Grimmauld Place he can't legally move into it alone until he is of age after the series has finished. Which is unfortunate, because I would like to see him inheriting Grimmauld Place, moving in to be away from the Dursleys in his first attempt at independence, and have LV come knocking on the door with a piece of coal and an AK for his new home. Which got me wondering just who is Harry's current legal guardian? The Dursley's right? Sirius was named his Godfather, and the role of Godfather is to assume the role of parent if the parents die, but doesn't a God parent have to legally adopt the child to assume that role? We know Sirius didn't have the time to adopt Harry as he was in prison, a fact that would disqualify him form adopting a child anyway. So I assume the Dursleys have legal control over Harry until he is 18. Now this all applies in the Muggle world and not the WW of course, but surly a wizard, even one a powerful as DD, couldn't place a baby with a muggle family without having that muggle family adopt the child legally? The local authorities would soon get suspicious if children started popping up in communities from goddnessknows where. But then again the WW seems able to pull the wool over the Muggle worlds eye's most of the time. So it looks like the Dursley's are Harry's legal guardians, so if that's the case and Harry inherits Grimmauld would the Dursleys have temporary control over the house until Harry is of age? What would they do with it? Sell it? Would latent witch Petunia use it? From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jan 3 21:12:43 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:12:43 -0000 Subject: Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > Rowling may have selected Albania due to a unique circumstance of > its oppression, under the rule of Evner Hoxha (one of the 20th > Century's many real-life Voldemorts). Beginning in 1967, and > contunuing through the collapse of the Communist regime in 1991, > Albania's constitution banned the practice of religion in any way > shape or form. My idea is that Rowling chose Albania for another aspect of Hoxha's insane dictatorship: he made Albania a closed country, with only the most limited communication allowed to the outside world, so it was kind of a 'mystery country'. From rredordead at aol.com Sat Jan 3 21:16:48 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:16:48 -0000 Subject: Hypothetical Quidditch positions. Was: Re: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88019 > Jekatiska > Suppose we will then have to allow a position for Hermione on the > Quidditch team. ;) Hope not, as she doesn't seem too keen herself. > And what about Neville? But I like your Quidditch theory. Poor Ron... Mandy Here: A position for Hermione? What about Coach. Hypothetically of course as she has no interest in actual Quidditch other than supporting her friends who do play, but she has shown herself to be a powerful instigator and facilitator for Harry to assume his role as leader/captain of the DA. Hermione stands on the side lines directing the action, telling the other what to do, she is a born leader who is not afraid to let the others play the game and take the glory. Looks like a coach to me. And Neville; he's the locker boy who secretly wants to play but nobody has noticed his enormous talent until he is forced in to action to save the day. What do you think? Mandy From clio44a at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:27:30 2004 From: clio44a at yahoo.com (clio44a) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:27:30 -0000 Subject: Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > wrote: > > > << Can anyone think of a good reason why LV would choose Albania as > > his hideout, bot before SS and between then and GoF? >> > > > > Rowling may have selected Albania due to a unique circumstance of it > oppression, [...] [snip] >Albania is the first and only > nation to attempt to openly expunge all forms of religious practice. > I believe it is not that much the oppression of religion that made JKR chose Albania as Voldy's hideout, but the general political and geographical situation of the country. Albania is the only country with few political ties to the rest of Post-cold-War Europe. It still is extremely secluded and remains geographically and politically isolated. Progress is, even compared with its Balkanian, war-ridden neighbors, extremely slow. Few know what is really going on there. It is still like a blind spot on the European map. It is also extremly poor. Thousands of people every year try to get over the Adriatic sea to Italy. Albania is part of the Balkan mountains, which means that great parts of the county are covered with high peaks, hardly touched by modern infrastructure. The proverbial 'wild gorges of the Balkan' would be a great obstacle for any search party. It is a ideal place to hide in the wilderness for someone like Voldemort. If the wizard world reflects only a tiny bit of real politics no one would look for him there. It is, so to speak, unknown territory. Clio From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:32:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:32:21 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88021 "koinonia02" wrote: > "K": > There's tons of canon supporting vampire/half-vampire Snape, isn't > there. > > I do agree with you on this particular scene but to be fair there is > another fireplace scene in Snape's office: > > PoA/Ch 14/UK > > Snape had aquirred a few more horrible slimy things in jars since last time, all standing on shelves behindhis desk, glinting in the *firelight* and adding to the threatening atmosphere. > > > He strode across to his fire, seized a fistfull of glittering powder > from a jar on the fireplace, and threw it into the flames. Carol: Excellent. You just destroyed the "no fire = Snape/vampire" idea with one well-chosen bit of canon. > > Jake: > >Indeed, > > vampires are the single most talked about magical creature in the > > entire series (and we have yet to actually encounter one). Koinona: > Yes. She's good at dropping little hints. Carol: This particular "hint" has all the marks of a red herring. The imagery appears too often to give it any validity. Besides, what purpose could be served by making Snape a vampire? How could he have been kept from attacking the children and other teachers for all these years? And how could he endure sitting by Quirrell, with his garlic-stuffed turban if he were really a vampire? (I accidentally typed "garlic-studdded turban." Now that would be a sight, wouldn't it? Right up there with Luna's radish earrings. :-) ) Jake: > >Perhaps the fact Snape do not mind the cold has something to do with > >his upbringings...geographically. I believed some people have > >speculated where Snape's family came from; maybe they are from the > >North. Some have pointed out his physical resemblance to Krum. > Koinonia: > It could be a hint as to where Snape's family is from but couldn't it > also be a hint as to what Krum might also be? Surely we aren't > going to only see one vampire? Carol: Krum's being from Bulgaria makes it at least possible that he's part vampire, just as Fleur is part Veela. I certainly think that if there's a vampire, it's more likely to be Krum than Snape, but I see no point in having either of them be only part human. As for Snape, his last name is an English place name and he speaks with a cultivated English accent (no I'm not thinking of Alan Rickman; I'm looking at Snape's eloquence in the book, in contrast with, say, Hagrid.) Not your typical Slavic vampire! Again, I don't believe for a moment that Snape is a vampire. Being an ex-DE is quite sufficient as a strike against him, and the arguments he used against having werewolf/Lupin as a teacher at Hogwarts could be turned right around and used against him if he were a vampire. I very much doubt that Snape could be a vampire without Dumbledore's being in on the secret. And, that being the case, even if Dumbledore allowed Snape to teach, he could not in good conscience allow him to be alone with any student, much less with Harry, his only hope for destroying Voldemort. Not to mention that Snape's contempt for mudbloods and nonhumans would be the utmost hypocrisy if he were all or part vampire. Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 3 21:43:38 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:43:38 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > In American English, "snitch" means tattletale or informant, > Also, does "snitch" have the same > meaning (informant or tattletale) in British English as it does in > American English? Geoff: Yes and it can also have the sense of stealing. "Someone's snitched my bag...." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:47:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:47:32 -0000 Subject: The eavesdropper: DD plant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88023 "confusinglyso" wrote (snipped by spangb): Fracas to eject "eavesdropper" could cause trance to be broken. > spangb responded: > Well,the text itself says that the one who was listening was thrown > out. But it doesn't specify who did the throwing. I mean, somebody > else might have been there, like Hagrid who might have spotted this > man eavesdropping and threw him out. Alternately, it doesn't require > that at all. After Dumbledore realised somebody was eavesdroping, he > just might have conjured a spell that threw this fellow. That > wouldn't break Trelawney's attention, would it? Carol: I don't think that *anything* could have broken Trelawney's trance. She was not in the "mundane world" and was unaware of her surroundings, just as she was when she delivered her second prophecy. The intruder could have broken *Dumbledore's* attention, however, and missing part of the prophecy might have been his reason for acquiring a pensieve--to hear the entire prophecy from an objective outside perspective, as many times as he needed or chose to do so. So I agree with you that it may have been Dumbledore who threw the person out, at least out of the room if not out of the Three Broomsticks. He could have recognized the eavesdropper as a DE and thrown a stunning spell or something. But the implication is that the person was actually thrown out of the Three Broomsticks, not just removed from the room, so I'm frankly as mystified as ever regarding this event. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:55:40 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:55:40 -0000 Subject: Jim McGuffin In-Reply-To: <56CA9E04.0FB4499E.0B739079@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, LWalshETAL at a... wrote: > > Remember Jim McGuffin with the weather? A Word a Day, > put out by Anu Garg just featured the word McGuffin. > I wasn't aware of the meaning of the word and perhaps > others aren't either. > > He writes: > "McGuffin (muh-GUF-in) noun, also MacGuffin > > A device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. > > > > A McGuffin could be a person, an object, or an event that characters of a story are interested in but that, intrinsically, if of little concern." > > I wonder if that means that Ted, the newscaster IS of > concern, if McGuffin is NOT. Ted Tonks? anyone? I doubt that it's Ted Tonks. He's a Muggle-born wizard (PoA 113, Am. ed.), not a Muggle. I do think the name McGuffin is a neat little in-joke, though. Carol, with apologies for the short post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 22:33:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:33:01 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Derek wrote: > > Interesting. It's easy to assume that Snape and McGonagall don't > much like each other, but I can't think of any canon to support that > idea. But I can't recall any indication from McGonagall that > she dislikes Snape. (Or any indication from Snape that he dislikes > McGonagall any more than he dislikes everyone else.) > > > > IMO, that's one of the two most likely possibilities. (ie., that > > McGonagall knows from past experience that Snape keeps his office > too > > cold for the students' well-being, either because Snape is a vampire > > or for whatever reason.) The other is that this was simply a > literary > > device by JKR to illustrate that McGonagall is concerned about the > > students' welfare (even when she is angry), while Snape is not. > > Berit replies: > > I can't think of any canon to support that Snape and McGonagall > dislike each other either. There IS canon evidence for them being > quite competitive; rivals so to speak. But I get the impression this > is quite good-natured, and that they respect each other. In SS > McGonagall tells Harry and Oliver she couldn't look Snape in the eyes > for weeks after the Gryffindor Quidditch team were flattened by the > Slytherins :-) Compare this with the Entrance Hall scene in OoP were > McGonagall is back from St.Mungo's and Snape greets her almost > affectionately, clearly happy to have her back at Hogwarts... To me, > the fact that McGonagall just lights Snape's fire without asking > shows how "close" they are; McGonagall knows Snape won't mind; > Snape's not offended because it's McGonagall doing it. I really enjoy > watching their "friendship"; always supporting their own houses > against each other, very keen to grab the House Cup from under the > other one's nose, but with a lot of respect and humour :-) > > About Snape's fireplace: Snape not keeping a fire in his office when > Ron and Harry were ushered in there is useless as evidence for him > being a vampire, simply because we know he has kept a fire going in > his office at other times. To me, the best evidence for him being a > vampire is how Lupin makes the class write an essay on vampires not > long after Snape had made them do one on werewolves... That REALLY is > fishy :-). Combine this with Rowling's batlike descriptions of > Snape's appearance and the way he glides through the corridors, and > you have a case. Personally I am not so sure Snape is a vampire, but > I am keeping Lupin's vampire essay in the back of my mind... > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Carol: I think the vampire essay is another red herring. Hermione would have caught on if Snape were a vampire just as she did in figuring out that Lupin was a werewolf. Also, any students who had read the werewolf chapter to do Snape's essay would probably find grindylows and hinkypunks pretty boring. Vampires, on the other hand, might spark their interest. It's just a substitute assignment that allows them a peek at the end of the book. (I don't think Lupin is vindictive enough to assign an essay out of spite and I don't think JKR would use the same plot device twice, but since I can't back up these opinions, I'm just stating them parenthetically.) Carol, who will be very disappointed in JKR if she pulls such a cheap stunt From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 3 23:01:07 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:01:07 -0000 Subject: Quirrel and Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88026 Carol wrote: > > Obviously you've researched this more than I have, but I still think > the area above St. Petersburg is a valid possible location for > Durmstrang. Like the Murmansk Peninsula, it's in Russia, is farther > north than Britain with long winter nights and all the other > Durmstrang attributes, and has both mountains and *very large* lakes, > not small ones like those yoou mention on the Murmansk Peninsula. The > St. Petersburg area is also somewhat closer than the peninsula to the > Slavic countries (Krum's home country of Bulgaria, for one). Anyway, > you and I agree that Durmstrang could be in Russia rather than > Scandinavia. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just suggesting that > the slightly more southern location should be considered as a possible > location for Durmstrang. Too far north and there are no towns or > settlements at all--it's just too cold even for wizarding villages. > > I'll yield to anyone who shows me the passage quoting JKR as stating > that Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. Till then, I agree with you that > it's probably in Russia, but hidden from Muggle eyes through a spell > rather than through a location so far north that a student from > Bulgaria like Krum would find the cold unbearable. Berit replies: I just thought of something: The Durmstrang ship seems to be a tall ship with riggings, mast(s?), deck and portholes. Sounds like a seafaring ship to me, not just a boat built for sailing on inland lakes. I know that the Durmstrang ship seems to have travelled under water by magic rather than travelling the Muggle way on the sea surface, but still; the choice of transport probably is a clue as to where Durmstrang is located. My guess is that the use of a tall ship suggests Durmstrang is located in an area close to the sea/ocean. Not sitting on an inland lake, but on the sea-coast. Looking at a map of Russia, this could still include the area around St.Petersburg as it is (just) north of Scotland, and there's quite a lot of coastline going from St.Petersburg to the Finnish border in the north-west. The only problem with Durmstrang being located along this sea coastline is that the winter days wouldn't be much shorter than the Scottish ones because this area is not considerably further north than Scotland. In that respect not only the Murmansk area but the whole coastline from Murmansk in the norhtwest to Archangel'sk in the east looks considerably more promising... There's hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of coastline up there, and so dark in the winter there is no daylight at all; the closest you get is a greyish dusk; the sun doesn't even rise for several months... And by the way; it's not too cold for people to live there; they do, it's just sparsely populated (and Krum and his fellow students can bear the cold because they dress in cloaks of fur; GoF p. 217 UK Ed.). And I have no problem imagining a school specializing in Dark Magic prefering such a location :-) Berit From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:25:55 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:25:55 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88027 sleepingdragonzz allysmom at w... wrote: I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, but refused. She does seem to know a great deal about the magical world, even though she would rather pretend that it didn't exist. Wouldn't it be interesting if Aunt Petunia had some magical powers that she has tried to "squash" out through the years? As we all know, you can't "squash" out the magical power of someone, even though Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia had tried to do so with Harry. Anyone have any thoughts?? vmonte responds: In an interview with Rowling, the author said that someone would gain magical powers late in life and that it was something that is very rare in the wizard world. It would be very interesting if it was Petunia. Would she try to hide her power or will she be forced to use it in order to save herself or her family??? Do you think that Dudley was meant to be a target of the Dementors (along with Harry) at the begining of OOTP? If so, Dudley's brush with a dementor may have released forgotten memories from his infancy. He may have remembered something important that will come out in book 6 or 7. What if the encounter with the Dementors released a vision having to do with Voldemort, his mother, or even the death of Potter's parents or Grand parents. Could Dudley's worst fear be that he was previously attacked by a Dementor as an infant? (Dudley and Harry are the same age--it's possible he saw something that he shouldn't have.) Did Voldemort get to Petunia before he got word from Wormtail about James and Lily Potter? Did he threaten her family? Do you think Petunia sold out her parents in order to protect her own family??? The only reason Harry wasn't thrown out of the house in the begining of OOTP was because Petunia received a Howler. As soon as the Howler came she completely changed her attitude and stated that Harry must stay. Yes, Petunia is hiding something big! Her hatred of the wizarding world is very apparent. I'm sure the last thing she would want is for her son to have magical powers. I think it is no coincidence that she married someone like her husband. She was looking for a life that had nothing to do with witches and wizards. She does not care for Harry, Lily, James, or anyone involved with the wizarding world. She fears what she cannot control. Obssesive cleaning is a sign of compulsive behavior (in almost every book someone mentions how clean her house is). In OOTP Tonks says that the cleanliness is unnatural: Page 51 OOTP, U.S. version: She followed Harry back into the hall and up the stairs, looking around with much curiosity and interest. "Funny place," she said, "it's a bit too clean, d'you know what I mean? Bit unnatural." People with obsessive behaviors are often people who feel that they have no control over their lives (she cannot control Harry and the wizarding world, and she is bitter about it). The fact that Petunia was the one who said that Harry must stay (after the howler came) means that someone must have reminded her of something. I find it hard to believe that she would agree to protect Harry, so, DD must have made a deal to protect her family as well...as long as Harry was welcome in her house. Are Dudley's magical powers being restrained by DD? Or will Petunia turn out to have magical powers in the end? If so, she may have to use magic to protect her family. She may even kill someone important in the DE because she will catch them unawares... Who really knows, just speculating. vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:39:00 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:39:00 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88028 Carol wrote: BTW, I disagree with the person who suggested that he acquired his knowledge solely by hard work. He has great natural gifts, including logic and the knowledge of a great many hexes before he even entered school. I think that, like Hermione, he has a photographic memory that enabled him to practically reproduce the textbook on his DADA O.W.L.) vmonte responds: I agree Snape is brilliant. I still think that he worked very hard to become that way. And yes, he is very like Hermioine---who also works very hard. There is nothing wrong with hard work. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 22:07:31 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:07:31 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88029 Carol wrote: And how could he endure sitting by Quirrell, with his garlic-stuffed turban if he were really a vampire? (I accidentally typed "garlic- studdded turban." Now that would be a sight, wouldn't it? Right up there with Luna's radish earrings. :-) ) vmonte responds: Liking Luna's quirky fashion sense I would have prefered a garlic studded turban. :) But maybe that's why Quirrell's turbin was stuffed with garlic to begin with, to ward off Snape. (I just accidentally typed Nape--like nape of neck). Carol wrote: Again, I don't believe for a moment that Snape is a vampire. Being an ex-DE is quite sufficient as a strike against him, and the arguments he used against having werewolf/Lupin as a teacher at Hogwarts could be turned right around and used against him if he were a vampire. I very much doubt that Snape could be a vampire without Dumbledore's being in on the secret. And, that being the case, even if Dumbledore allowed Snape to teach, he could not in good conscience allow him to be alone with any student, much less with Harry, his only hope for destroying Voldemort. Not to mention that Snape's contempt for mudbloods and nonhumans would be the utmost hypocrisy if he were all or part vampire. vmonte responds: Maybe Snape is not a vampire but an Animagus, a bat. Also, Voldemort is a mudblood as well and he hates mudbloods... vmonte From fkilc at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 22:41:03 2004 From: fkilc at yahoo.com (fkilc) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:41:03 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88030 Allysmom wrote: > I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if > Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, > but refused. Greetings to all, this is my first post ! I'm sure that others have had the same idea (I have looked a little, but not much admittedly) but I've always thought that perhaps one reason Petunia ignores the magical world is that Lily and Petunia might be the daughters of squibs - that you explain her bitterness that her parents were always "Lily this" or "Lily that"... so perhaps, as in Neville's case, she just wasn't quite magical enough to attend Hogwarts - and maybe it comes out in the end ? --francois From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 23:19:25 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:19:25 -0000 Subject: OT Speculative Geography - Albania & The Accursed Mountains. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88031 More maps and photos. Just for reference, it might be nice to know where all these strange places are at while we discuss them, so once again my trusty CD-ROM and I have prepared some maps for you. http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/Files/albania/pg1.htm Satellite Photo Maps of Albania and the surround area, as well as links to many photos and detailed information about Albania. Note the mountais in Albania are so rugged and inhospitable that they are referred to as 'The Accursed Mountains' and local legend has it that the Devil himself created them on his day off. In addition to The Accursed Mountains, Albania is about 40% woodland and forested. Well worth a look just so see some great photos of the country side. Just passing it along. bboy_mn From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 22:44:59 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:44:59 -0000 Subject: Hypothetical Quidditch positions. Was: Re: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88032 Mandy Here: A position for Hermione? What about Coach. Hypothetically of course as she has no interest in actual Quidditch other than supporting her friends who do play, but she has shown herself to be a powerful instigator and facilitator for Harry to assume his role as leader/captain of the DA. Hermione stands on the side lines directing the action, telling the other what to do, she is a born leader who is not afraid to let the others play the game and take the glory. Looks like a coach to me. vmonte responds: I could see Luna and Hermione working together. Leading the elves perhaps. Hermione is going to need all the help she can get, she is not going about SPEW the right way at all. Dobby mentions in chapter 10 of COS: "But mostly, sir, life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not-Be- Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord's power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir..." I think the kids will be able to rally the elves onto their side if the go about it from a practical stance. If Hogwarts is destroyed along with the OOTP and many other muggle and wizard families, the elves will be out of a job. I don't think they will want to lose their jobs and go back to work for the nasty DE wizards. Mandy wrote: And Neville; he's the locker boy who secretly wants to play but nobody has noticed his enormous talent until he is forced in to action to save the day. vmonte responds: Do you think that Neville will get the wand in the window display at Ollivander's? The wand that is very old...and has been given a special place of honor? Does anyone else think that Neville is going to kick --- at the end of book seven. vmonte out! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 23:21:03 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:21:03 -0000 Subject: Was Quirrell really a willing participant or struggling against Voldemort ? In-Reply-To: <4BC2F8BF.4D5AED3D.4B073798@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/2/2004 5:18:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, "vmonte" writes: > >Sorry this may be a stupid question but was Quirrell a willing > >follower of Voldemort or was he struggling against the dark side? > > I think he was seduced by the Dark Side. I always think of the movie The Mummy when reading these books -- "It is better to be the right hand of the Devil than in his path." I think that some of the general supporters of LV were just afraid of him. > > > > > >Is it possible that Quirrell was attempting to fight off Voldemort, > >but in the end was not able to? > > I thought so. At the beginning at least. Not many people *really* want to join the Dark Side (exceptions in the Potterverse being most of Slytherin house). I don't think Pettigrew was planning on being a Death Eater (speaking of which, he *is* a DE, right? I just can't see him in the inner circle with Lucius and Co.) At the end Quirrel might have been a true blue follower of LV. Dumbledore tells Ginny in CoS that far older and wiser wizards have been tricked by LV (not an exact quote, of course). > > Oryomai Quirrell was easy prey for Voldemort, just as Ginny was for Tom Riddle: "young, foolish, and gullible," "easy to bend to my will" (GoF 654 Am. ed.). Somehow he carries Voldemort back home with him but after his failure to get the stone, he's literally possessed. Nevertheless, he maintains his own identity, and unlike Ginny in SS/PS, seems to know exactly what he's doing. I questioned in another post how much of the stammering and fainting is an act and how much is real; how much is acting out what Voldemort wants him to do and how much is real terror. By the end of SS/PS, where he seems oddly stronger but is still afraid of his master, he seems wholly corrupted, cursed by the unicorn blood but also apparently quite content, even proud, to be the servant of evil. Carol, who respectfully disagrees with Constance Vigilance about Qiorrell returning as a good guy but does wonder how having Voldemort leave his body could cause him to die From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 23:40:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:40:32 -0000 Subject: Quirrel's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > arcum42 wrote: > Dumbledore never addresses Quirrell directly. After Quirrell's > defeat, he calls Quirrell "Professor Quirrell" twice, and just > Quirrell" four times, so we have no canon to speak of for the > professors first name. Curiously, he calls Harry on saying > "Snape" instead of "Professor Snape" just after calling Professor > Quirrell nothing but "Quirrell" three times in a row... > > vmonte responds: > In the movie Quirell's first name is listed in the credits as > Quirenius. His First name is not listed in the books. > > vmonte :) That's odd. The Lexicon says that the movie credits him as Slatero http://www.hp-lexicon.org/quirrell.html but now that you mention it, I think I do recall seeing him listed in the credits as Quirenius (which is at least nicely alliterative like Severus Snape and Minerva McGonagall). I wonder if JKR authorized that name. (BTW, the IMDb, identified as the source for the name Slatero, now lists the character merely as Professor Quirrell. Maybe the Lexicon should be updated?) In any case, Quirenius sounds Latin and, as a number of British wizards have Latin first names, we still don't have any basis for thinking of him as anything other than English. (I'm thinking of CV and her efforts to link Quirrell to Norway.) Carol, with apologies for being somewhat OT From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 3 23:45:24 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:45:24 -0000 Subject: Russian fur; Was: Quirrel and Scandinavia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88035 Just another thought on the location of Durmstrang: The Durmstrang students' attire is yet another clue Durmstrang is located in Russia: When they arrived at Hogwarts they were wearing heavy fur coats (that were shaggy and matted; made of bear's fur perhaps?). This actually doesn't just suggest they came from a cold place, but more specifically, Russia! You do find people living up north in Norway, Sweden and Finland dressing in fur during winter-time, but what country is KNOWN for its "furry" clothing? Russia. Russians are known for their special bulky "fur caps" which both men and women wear. You don't find them that much in the neighbouring countries of scandinavia; the few (old) Norwegian people I know of that wear them refer to them as Russian clothing! If you have ever watched a Television programme reporting from Russia; Moscow for instance, a cold winter's day, you know what I mean :-) Everyone, and I mean everyone, is wearing fur cloaks and caps... Karkarov was wearing a different and more expensive sort of fur than his students: Sleek silver fur, possibly fur of silver-coated fox or grey wolf. Anyone knowing more about furs than I do, and may comment on whether this sort of silver fur is a product special of the northern parts of Russia/Scandinavia (or is it equally common in for instance Alaska?). Berit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 23:50:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:50:22 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sleepingdragonzz" wrote: > I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if > Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, but > refused. She does seem to know a great deal about the magical world, > even though she would rather pretend that it didn't exist. Wouldn't > it be interesting if Aunt Petunia had some magical powers that she > has tried to "squash" out through the years? As we all know, you > can't "squash" out the magical power of someone, even though Uncle > Vernon and Aunt Petunia had tried to do so with Harry. Anyone have > any thoughts?? We're told very plainly in books one and two that Petunia is a Muggle. Also JKR has made the point directly in an interview: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/0200-scholastic-chat.htm Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 23:55:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:55:04 -0000 Subject: Is Peter (wormtail) a pure blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sleepingdragonzz" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Sorry if this is mentioned in one of the books and I never caught > it. > > Is Peter a pure blood or a "mud blood?" > > > > The only reason why I ask is that Collin Creevey sort of reminds > me > > of Wormtail. In Snape's pensieve scene Peter seemed to worship > and > > idolize James, much like Collin venerates Harry. > > > > Collin reminds me of a stalker. You know those crazy fans that at > > first idolize a person (movie star, TV personality, famous wizard, > > etc.) but then inexplicably turn against their idol. > > > > Peter venerated James at first.... > > From allysmom: > Yes, there are similarities between Peter and Colin, but I rather > think that all of LV's followers are purebloods. Look at all the > deatheaters..Crabbe,Goyle,Malfoy,the Lestrange, etc. Although, no > mention was ever made of the deatheaters' mark on wormtail's arm. > Why would LV want "mudbloods" in his little circle?? > Wormtail does seem to be a bit inadequate as a wizard (as Neville > was...also a pureblood). I would guess that Wormtail is also a > pureblood. But, I suppose we'll find out later..... Since Wormtail is an animagus and can cast an AK (he kills Cedric on Voldemort's orders), not to mention blowing off his own finger and killing thirteen Muggles in a way that makes it look as if Sirius has killed *him*, I wouldn't call him inadequate as a wizard. As a friend or a person, though, he's somewhat lacking. :-) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 00:05:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:05:12 -0000 Subject: Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" > wrote: > > > > Rowling may have selected Albania due to a unique circumstance of > > its oppression, under the rule of Evner Hoxha (one of the 20th > > Century's many real-life Voldemorts). Beginning in 1967, and > > contunuing through the collapse of the Communist regime in 1991, > > Albania's constitution banned the practice of religion in any way > > shape or form. > > My idea is that Rowling chose Albania for another aspect of Hoxha's > insane dictatorship: he made Albania a closed country, with only the > most limited communication allowed to the outside world, so it was > kind of a 'mystery country'. But Quirrell, Bertha Jorkins, and Peter Pettigrew have no difficulty arriving there and Quirrell and Pettigrew have no difficulty leaving. (Neither would Bertha if she hadn't been murdered.) In fact, Quirrell somehow smuggles Voldemort out of the country (LV is not yet inside Quirrell's head). I don't think Muggle events have anything to do with the choice of Albania. It's more likely the vampire connection and/or dark magic, which is certainly what lured Quirrell there in the first place. Carol Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 00:16:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:16:37 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fkilc" wrote: > Allysmom wrote: > > I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if > > Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, > > but refused. > > > Greetings to all, this is my first post ! > > I'm sure that others have had the same idea (I have looked a little, > but not much admittedly) but I've always thought that perhaps one > reason Petunia ignores the magical world is that Lily and Petunia > might be the daughters of squibs - that you explain her bitterness > that her parents were always "Lily this" or "Lily that"... so > perhaps, as in Neville's case, she just wasn't quite magical enough > to attend Hogwarts - and maybe it comes out in the end ? > > --francois As I stated in a previous post, JKR states quite plainly in an interview that Lily is muggle-born, meaning that her parents weren't squibs and neither is Petunia. But see our earlier discussions of Mark Evans, who may turn out to be a muggle-born second or third cousin of Harry's (showing up at Hogwarts in Book 6), which would mean that there are Squibs posing as Muggles somewhere in the Evans line, and Wizard parents for those Squibs. Just do a site search for Mark Evans and you'll find the relevant posts. Carol From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sat Jan 3 21:14:15 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:14:15 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88040 Carol: > Also, does "snitch" have the same > meaning (informant or tattletale) in British English as it does in > American English? Now me, Julia: Yes, "snitch" in British English has the same meaning. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 21:33:10 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:33:10 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88041 Carol wrote: Interesting point, only I don't think the snitch symbolizes Voldemort. ... but then we have the problem of why Peter would have been thrown out of the Three Broomsticks. And if the person is Regulus Black, as someone suggested earlier, we have the problem that the informant appears to be dead and, if so, could not be caught, only exposed after the fact, which wouldn't accomplish much. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea of Harry catching the "snitch" in the sense of informant. Does anyone else have ideas on this? Also, does "snitch" have the same meaning (informant or tattletale) in British English as it does in American English? vmonte wrote: Maybe Snape is the "snitch with wings." If he really is a vampire then he would probably have been thrown out of the bar as well. vmonte From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 4 00:58:44 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:58:44 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88042 Carol wrote: > I think the vampire essay is another red herring. Hermione would have caught on if Snape were a vampire just as she did in figuring out that Lupin was a werewolf. Also, any students who had read the werewolf chapter to do Snape's essay would probably find grindylows and hinkypunks pretty boring. Vampires, on the other hand, might spark > their interest. It's just a substitute assignment that allows them a > peek at the end of the book. (I don't think Lupin is vindictive enough to assign an essay out of spite and I don't think JKR would use the same plot device twice, but since I can't back up these opinions, I'm just stating them parenthetically.) Berit replies: I agree with you that Hermione would indeed have caught on if the vampire essay was Lupin's attempt to reveal Snape as a vampire. So this is a good argument the vampire essay's just a red herring. But then there is this to consider: What if Hermione DID catch on; she just hasn't told Ron and Harry yet? After all, she kept Lupin's secret to herself to protect him; she might do the same for Snape. Hermione is always the one defending Snape whenever Ron or Harry suspects him of treason; Hermione trusts Snape because Dumbledore does. So there's still a tiny chance that vampire essay was a clue, and that Hermione KNOWS (though I agree with you that Lupin is not the vindictive type and probably wouldn't get back at Snape like that). Just wanted to point his out, even though I lean towards the view that Snape is not a vampire/half vampire. I just can't rule it out completely :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 01:13:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:13:46 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Carol wrote: > > I think the vampire essay is another red herring. Hermione would > have caught on if Snape were a vampire just as she did in figuring > out that Lupin was a werewolf. Also, any students who had read the > werewolf chapter to do Snape's essay would probably find grindylows > and hinkypunks pretty boring. Vampires, on the other hand, might spark > > their interest. It's just a substitute assignment that allows them a > > peek at the end of the book. (I don't think Lupin is vindictive > enough to assign an essay out of spite and I don't think JKR would > use the same plot device twice, but since I can't back up these > opinions, I'm just stating them parenthetically.) > > Berit replies: > > I agree with you that Hermione would indeed have caught on if the > vampire essay was Lupin's attempt to reveal Snape as a vampire. So > this is a good argument the vampire essay's just a red herring. But > then there is this to consider: What if Hermione DID catch on; she > just hasn't told Ron and Harry yet? After all, she kept Lupin's > secret to herself to protect him; she might do the same for Snape. > Hermione is always the one defending Snape whenever Ron or Harry > suspects him of treason; Hermione trusts Snape because Dumbledore > does. So there's still a tiny chance that vampire essay was a clue, > and that Hermione KNOWS (though I agree with you that Lupin is not > the vindictive type and probably wouldn't get back at Snape like > that). > > Just wanted to point his out, even though I lean towards the view > that Snape is not a vampire/half vampire. I just can't rule it out > completely :-) > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html One more anti-vampire point that just occurred to me. I believe that in folklore vampires cast no reflection, but both Harry and Snape himself see snape's reflection in the foe glass in Imposter!Moody's office in GoF. Carol From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 4 02:17:05 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:17:05 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88044 Carol wrote: > One more anti-vampire point that just occurred to me. I believe that > in folklore vampires cast no reflection, but both Harry and Snape > himself see snape's reflection in the foe glass in Imposter!Moody's > office in GoF. Berit replies: Good point again :-) I think the chances of Snape being a fully fledged vampire are pretty slim. But the chances of him being part vampire (one of his parents or grand parents being one) might be slightly bigger; that would account for him casting shadows and being able to eat normal food, being out in the sunlight, not stalking students to drink their blood etc. Just like Hagrid is only half a giant and does not share his mothers vicious nature. Just a thought :-) Even though I'm still with you and really don't believe Snape's a (half-)vampire. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 02:42:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:42:54 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88045 Near the end of OoP, Draco says to Harry, "The dementors have left Azkaban. Dad and the others'll be out in no time." Harry responds, "Yeah, I expect they will. Still, at least everyone knows what scumbags they are now--" (OoP 851 Am. ed.) Since Lucius is so slippery and a breakout of the sort that freed Bellatrix et al. would look very bad, I'm predicting that Lucius will find a way to buy or talk his way out, to get Fudge back into his pocket and/or convince him of his innocence. (If he were a Muggle, he'd threaten to sue Fudge for false imprisonment and defamation of character, but we've yet to seen any Wizard lawyers.) We've seen the ability of the Daily Prophet reporters to switch positions abruptly (Harry's a victim; Harry's a nutcase) and persuade their readers to go along with them, so "everyone knows what scumbags they are now" could be a temporary situation, with Lucius somehow back to freedom and rich respectability (and an arrogant sneer back on Draco's face). Since we've been exploring rather implausible scenarios lately, how about this one: Narcissa remains friends with Mrs. Fudge (first name unknown), who feels sorry for her and thinks it's unfair to ostracize her just because her husband is in prison. Mrs. Fudge, at Narcissa's urging, persuades Cornelius to have tea with Narcissa for old times' sake. Narcissa slips Fudge some sort of potion made from her husband's large stash of illegal substances and persuades him, under the influence of the drug, to release her husband (rather like a temporary Imperius curse that he won't remember). Possibly she offers him some sort of monetary compensation as further incentive. This scenario provides a role for Narcissa, who until now has been only a pretty face distorted by a sneer and a source of sweets for Draco. It also makes more sense than having Bellatrix, herself high up on the most wanted list, break him (and her husband and brother-in-law) out of prison so that they can become fugitives like her. How dangerous could they be then? Anyone else have an idea how Lucius might escape and still have some influence in the WW? Or do you all think we've seen the last of Lucius and his mantle, such as it is, will pass to Draco? Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 02:47:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:47:09 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: <005f01c3d0a6$78e49260$0258aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > This also works in nicely with my theory that Snape must be very careful of > the memories and emotions he has of Harry, so as to be able to lie to > Voldemort, and so this is probably one of the only ways he can impart > information to Harry in any sort of memorable way. > > ~Amanda, whose gold coins are all chocolate this time of the year, and > rapidly being stolen by children Hi, Amanda! As I said I love your theory, I find it the most logical and believable one especially because it seems to acknowledge that Snape's first and foremost concerned about self-preservation (not about Harry's best interests all the time), which is understandable and entirely reasonable if he spies on Voldemort directly, or if he at least has to be somewhere nearby him (as Animagus, vampire or whoever), but even though this quote "it is not up to you to find out what the Dark lord is saying to his Death Eaters. No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. .... "Yes, Potter", he said, his eyes glinting, "That's my job. Now, if you are ready, we will start again..." (OoP, p.531) makes a very strong case for Snape returning to his spy activities, it is not necessarily the only interepretation, don't you agree? I mean, Severus may be a spy indeed, but on Lucius Malfoy, for example, where he does not need to use his Occlumence skills. He may not even be a spy among Death Eaters, but do something completely different ( if we are to accept as a given that he lies most of the time, he could as well lie to Harry). he could be a Vampire, etc... So, if he is not spying on Voldemort, does it make your theory invalid? Meaning that there is no need for him to preserve his true emotions, memories of hating Harry and he just does that for his own pleasure ? :o) Could you clarify, please? One more comment - suppose he is indeed a spy among the death eaters and the war is over and both he and Harry surivived. So, for so many years he was working so hard to keep his hatred of Harry alive. Do you think he will be able to get rid of it? I think that by keeping his emotions directed on Harry alive for Voldemort to see, Snape has no choice but hate the boy for real. :o) Alla From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 4 02:50:33 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:50:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <000801c3d26d$86d54d60$2059aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88047 Carol: > One more anti-vampire point that just occurred to me. I believe that > in folklore vampires cast no reflection, but both Harry and Snape > himself see snape's reflection in the foe glass in Imposter!Moody's > office in GoF. Speaking as a Non-Vampire Snape theorist, I am nonetheless honor-bound to point out that this very episode has been cited as *support* for him being a vampire--because a detail that is mentioned is that Snape looks into the glass. I believe the Vampire people have cited this as evidence that he is one, because he will not have had many opportunities to see his reflection and his image in the Foe Glass (which is not a reflection like a standard mirror) was irresistible. *sigh* These people will just grasp at *anything,* won't they? ;P ~Amanda, who is teasing and actually very impressed with the marshaling of tiny shreds into a Body of Evidence, but not giving an inch From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 4 03:21:09 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:21:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <001401c3d271$cd6fcee0$2059aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88048 Alla: > As I said I love your theory, I find it the most logical and > believable one especially because it seems to acknowledge that > Snape's first and foremost concerned about self-preservation (not > about Harry's best interests all the time), which is understandable > and entirely reasonable if he spies on Voldemort directly, or if he > at least has to be somewhere nearby him (as Animagus, vampire or > whoever), but even though this quote > "it is not up to you to find out what the Dark lord is saying to his > Death Eaters. > No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. .... > "Yes, Potter", he said, his eyes glinting, "That's my job. Now, if > you are ready, we will start again..." (OoP, p.531) > makes a very strong case for Snape returning to his spy activities, > it is not necessarily the only interepretation, don't you agree? > > I mean, Severus may be a spy indeed, but on Lucius Malfoy, for > example, where he does not need to use his Occlumence skills. A couple of points. Lucius must be a skilled wizard to have Imperius'd Unspeakables. He is also sharp enough to know Voldemort's nature and ego. It would be in his own--Lucius'--best interests to be skilled at either Legilimency or Occlumency or both. A slippery character like him, he'd want to retain some control, and/or an ace in the hole, and be able to lie if he needed to. He is not a typical sycophant or subservient character. So even *if* Snape is only spying on the Malfoys, it's far from clear that he *wouldn't* need Occlumency and the protection of cubbyholing his memories. However, in my opinion, the circumstantial evidence points to Snape spying on Voldemort himself. It just doesn't *feel* like the foot-stomping red herrings we've seen before (although I may be wrong). For instance--Harry didn't tell Snape that his memory of Rookwood had been from Voldemort's perspective. We are not told whether the memory itself told Snape what it was, but from what Snape mentions: "that man and that room"--he recognized them and knew what they were, and what Harry's seeing them meant. > He may not even be a spy among Death Eaters, but do something > completely different ( if we are to accept as a given that he lies > most of the time, he could as well lie to Harry). he could be a > Vampire, etc... ?? I don't think he lies very often at all. And I don't think he *ever* lies blatantly. If there is one characteristic of Snape that we *do* know, it is that he values *subtlety.* A subtle liar very, very seldom, if ever, states an untruth. That has no finesse, no art. No, a subtle liar will build up and then lean on false impressions, omit key things, and state perfect truth, having laid the ground for misinterpretation. To draw a fine distinction--Snape is not a *liar,* he is a *deceiver.* Example, from Watership Down: Bigwig, a rabbit, has entered a hostile warren to try to steal some does [females]. The rest of the raiding party are hiding nearby; they have not entered the warren. Before this, while on their way to the warren, they accidentally ran across some rabbits from the warren. After Bigwig goes into the warren, he is recognized by one of the rabbits they ran into. The Chief Rabbit of the warren asks him if he knows anything about these other rabbits (Bigwig's friends). What Bigwig says is, "I saw their tracks about the same time, too, sir. I can't tell you any more than that." Perfect truth. Totally misleading. This, I think, is what Snape does. A subtle art and exact science, to be sure. That said--it takes a *very* great deal of effort to be an effective liar. One must expend mental energy to remember to whom one said what, which tissues of misinterpretation one has set up for which individuals, etc. I don't think Snape would consider most people to be worth that level of effort. I think the *cause* is worth it to him, but I think his energies in misleading are focused there, not wasted elsewhere for lesser reasons. > One more comment - suppose he is indeed a spy among the death eaters > and the war is over and both he and Harry surivived. So, for so many > years he was working so hard to keep his hatred of Harry alive. Do > you think he will be able to get rid of it? I think that by keeping > his emotions directed on Harry alive for Voldemort to see, Snape has > no choice but hate the boy for real. :o) Okay, first off, I don't think Snape will survive. I think he's toast. Snape's actions must, for plot reasons, be validly misinterpretable by both readers and Harry. I think it is Harry's hatred that I'm more interested in monitoring as he matures. I think JKR is nothing short of ingenius in the way she has forced both of them to learn more about each other, while growing absolutely NO closer in the process. And I find an interesting bit of possible foreshadowing in the way Harry had "willed Snape to read his mind" or whatever the wording, in Umbridge's office. It is a fond fantasy of mine, that I can see a scene coming where Harry must face Voldemort, and Snape is present, and Harry must decide to trust Snape, and Snape, through their understanding and connection forged during the Occlumency lessons, shields Harry's mind from Voldemort. Such fertile ground there, for further sharing of selves unwillingly. Harry seems to be coming to a "faces/vase" point; one which his interpretations of Snape consistently steer him away from. If you have seen the optical illusion, the "which is it, two faces or a vase," you know what I mean. Harry is choosing to consistently see Snape in one way only, to the point where he will not let himself remember the man is in the Order when it would have been a way to save Sirius. I think Harry will get to a point where he suddenly sees the validity of the alternate interpretation--a validity he has never acknowledged--and I am interested to see how he will react to this perception. I wonder if Harry didn't remember about Snape, because subconsciously he was "protecting" Sirius from him, or maybe he didn't want Snape to get any credit for saving him..? Doesn't explain forgetting about the gift, though... oh, well. We'll make a convert of you yet, Alla. ~Amanda From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 01:41:28 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:41:28 -0000 Subject: Why is Dobby different from the other elves? Also Ron's grim joke about Dobby.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88050 vmonte wrote: What is Dobby's story? What makes him so different from the other elves? I understand that there comes a time in history when all repressed beings eventually stand up to fight against slavery. But why only Dobby? Will this begin to change in the next books? Will more elves become inspired by Dobby? Also, Ron tells Harry in one of the books: 'If Dobby doesn't stop helping you he is going to end up killing you.' (Not the exact wording.) Should we take this to mean the Dobby will blunder in the future somehow? From adelram at edsamail.com.ph Sun Jan 4 02:49:02 2004 From: adelram at edsamail.com.ph (Rai-chan:>) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:49:02 +0800 Subject: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88051 While I was reading HP Book 1-3, it never entered my head that there would be some sort of love stuffs and pair-ups by J.K Rowling. But since that Yule Ball in GF, well in changed my mind. Anyway, what I'm going to ask is if whether you think Harry would still be interested in Cho Chang or not since in OOP, he was thinking that he doesn't care whether Cho's going out with other guys. So does that mean he's not interested in her anymore??? If yes, so who do you think he'll be paired up with in Book 6? Hermione (Nahh!! I think she's paired up with Ron)? Ginny (who knows?)? Rai-chan:> _______________________________________ EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT. www.edsamail.com.ph From julwalker7614726 at aol.com Sun Jan 4 02:11:42 2004 From: julwalker7614726 at aol.com (ejom723) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:11:42 -0000 Subject: Blood in Paper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88052 I've been following the Blood in Paper threads that have been circulating recently in the posts. An interesting thought if, in fact, Umbridge really is a DE. Also, interesting if LV gets his hands on that pen and its residule blood (also, don't forget it also contains some of Dean Thomas' blood which could prove for an interesting mix.) All these ideas are great, but something "bewitchedbyhp" said in his/her last post caught my eyes: BLOOD LINES (my emphasis)(the line Harry wrote in his blood) and where have we seen the importance of blood lines as in lineage. Actually, all through the series, but most recently at 12 Grimmauld Pl with the Black Family Tree. There's a connection there somehow, I just can't figure it out. Any help is encouraged. Possibly a link between HP & LV? (other than the GOF blood swapping thing. Maybe, relatives? Jules, who prays for a time turner everyday. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 03:41:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:41:50 -0000 Subject: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <000801c3d26d$86d54d60$2059aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Carol: > > > One more anti-vampire point that just occurred to me. I believe that > > in folklore vampires cast no reflection, but both Harry and Snape > > himself see snape's reflection in the foe glass in Imposter!Moody's > > office in GoF. > > Speaking as a Non-Vampire Snape theorist, I am nonetheless honor-bound to > point out that this very episode has been cited as *support* for him being a > vampire--because a detail that is mentioned is that Snape looks into the > glass. I believe the Vampire people have cited this as evidence that he is > one, because he will not have had many opportunities to see his reflection > and his image in the Foe Glass (which is not a reflection like a standard > mirror) was irresistible. > > *sigh* These people will just grasp at *anything,* won't they? ;P > > ~Amanda, who is teasing and actually very impressed with the marshaling of > tiny shreds into a Body of Evidence, but not giving an inch Whose evidence? I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I'm about to give up, not on my belief that Snape is not a vampire but on convincing people who are determined to believe that he is. "Snape threw back his cloak and opened his mouth to reveal his heretofore concealed fangs, which were dripping with blood. He reached for Harry and was just about to bite his neck when Dumbledore walked into the room. 'Stupefy!'" All right, I'm presenting the idea in a ridiculous light, but that's how it strikes me. What I don't understand is why anyone, even the most virulent Snape hater, would *want* Snape to be a vampire. What purpose does it serve? How does it advance the plot? He's a complex character with no need for supernatural explanations for his attitudes and actions. I much prefer real, human motivations. Carol, who apologizes to those of you who read the list by email and received two versions of this post. I couldn't let it slip by with "wer" for "was" (!?) so I deleted the first one and revised this one in the process. From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 4 03:57:25 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:57:25 -0600 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <002101c3d276$de42cec0$2059aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88054 Carol, exasperated, asked > Whose evidence? I'm a bit confused. One of the Pips--I can never remember if it's Pip or Pip!Squeak (and they *are* two different people, I'm told)--compiled a masterful list of every shred of canon that had any chance of being interpreted to point at Snape as a vampire. Pip? Have you reposted lately, or given the link to it? If you do, we can all get on the same page. > What I don't understand is why anyone, even the most > virulent Snape hater, would *want* Snape to be a vampire. What purpose > does it serve? How does it advance the plot? He's a complex character > with no need for supernatural explanations for his attitudes and > actions. I much prefer real, human motivations. You and I are in total agreement. However, I can see several grounds for wanting him to be one. Only one has to do with plot; the rest have to do with how we, as readers, interact with the characters. 1. Plot-related. JKR may make Snape a vampire to further make her points about prejudice and exclusion. [Personally, I don't think this point has yet been fully explored, because her creatures are not simply differently-shaped humans, and it remains to be seen how the different species can realistically be expected to interact.] Okay, so much for plot. 2. How totally cool to have known all along, if it *does* turn out to be true; how wonderful to have figured out a JKR device so early on. 3. Vampires (at least the modern varieties) are presented as lifestyle options, not monsters or sub-human. They're sexy. Snape is often considered attractive, based on such things as his redemption potential, intellect, lonely bravery, etc.; it may be irresistible to keep from combining that with similar qualities seen in many modern vampire interpretations. 4. I just thought of this, it'd be interesting to see if there *is* a clear correlation--the Lupin lovers may want Snape to have a similar affliction, in a sort of reverse defense of, or equalization to, Lupin. 5. I also just thought of this, but I'm almost certain I've seen this point argued in a Sirius thread. The Sirius people may want Snape to be a vampire, and want Sirius to have known about it, in yet another of the many attempts to excuse his setting the Prank in action. Any others? What an interesting question, Carol: Why. We've spent so long on Yes or No. [makes mental note to rummage back in the archives if there's time and find some of my old passionate refutations of Vampire!Snape.] ~Amanda From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Jan 4 04:23:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:23:43 -0500 Subject: Quidditch Metaphors Revisited Message-ID: <001201c3d27a$89a2d960$5902a8c0@Belkin> No: HPFGUIDX 88055 This is a post-OOP update of my original Quidditch-as-metaphor post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/48192 in which I hypothesized pre-OOP that Quidditch provides much more than sport to the series, that JKR designed the game of Quidditch and the players as metaphors for Harry's overall role in the series and his support team, and that she choreographed the Quidditch sequences in each book to foreshadow its climax. OOP, I think, continues the metaphor, and particularly the foreshadowing, perhaps more clearly than the other four books. First, Harry the Seeker. In OOP, Harry for the first time does not carry the burden that is thrust upon him. He rebels against the solitary yet watchful role of the Seeker: He makes little effort to control his anger. He will not heed McGonagall's warnings not to cross Umbridge. He refuses to apply himself to Occlumency despite the urging of all those around him. He yields to the temptation of his vision of the locked corridor. And so on, until he falls for Voldemort's trap and rashly rushes to the MoM where his mission to *rescue* Sirius also fails, as Sirius was not there at all and he is killed in the effort to rescue Harry from the Death Eaters. For the first time in the series, Harry fails and Dumbledore arrives just in time to rescue him from certain death by Avada Kedavra. Harry's relationship with Quidditch foreshadows this result. After the first Quidditch match, unable to control his anger, Harry succumbs to Draco's provocation (in the form of insults against Lily) and becomes involved in a fight that results in his banishment from the sport. His separation is so complete that by the third match, he doesn't even stay to support his team and his friend. In both Quidditch and in his life, Harry abandons responsibility. Next, the Keeper. Ron is formally appointed Keeper of the team, a role I suggested earlier that he could fulfill for Harry off the Quidditch pitch. Indeed, he occupies the role of Keeper in two ways in OOP, as JKR has literally made him Harry's keeper. Though he is reluctant to shoulder either responsibility (his attempts to resign from the Quidditch team are paralleled by his constant claim that Hermione has sent him whenever he checks up on Harry), he is the one who wakes him from his visions of the locked door at the end of the corridor. And when Gryffindor's last chance for the Quidditch Cup is slipping away, Ron rises to the occasion. This parallels the fact that throughout OOP, Harry has another Keeper who appears not to be fulfilling his role, either. In my earlier post, I suggested that Dumbledore's role in the series is fulfilled on the Quidditch pitch by the captain, who is in charge of strategy and training. In OOP, especially in ch. 37, Dumbledore's dual role of captain and Keeper (paralleling Oliver Wood's earlier occupancy of both positions) is highlighted more clearly. What changed in OOP was that Dumbledore apparently yielded the captaincy to others - he removes himself from Harry's presence, he does not explain things to Harry that now need explaining, and he delegates key tasks, such as Occlumency training, to others. Dumbledore only appeared on the scene (as metaphorical Keeper) at critical moments. This happened twice (at Harry's hearing before the Wizengamot and in the MoM when Voldemort has him cornered), if not three times (when Dumbledore took the fall for the DA). Indeed, Harry would be dead if it were not for Dumbledore's crucial save at the MoM. The Chasers. More than ever, Harry's off-pitch Chasers show themselves to be essential elements of his support team, and in OOP they step out of the shadows and take on Harry's responsibilities when he does not. *Angelina, one of the Chasers, becomes Gryffindor's Quidditch captain. She asks Harry for assistance but he is rarely available when she needs him: first he is in detention with Umbridge when he should be helping her evaluate Keeper candidates; then he is banished from the team. She loses other key players as well, but still manages to produce a winner with less qualified substitutes. Angelina's counterpart off the pitch could be Hermione, whom I identified in my last post as chief Chaser. Off the pitch, Hermione "captains" Harry* when he fails to take charge of his own responsibilities. She pays attention to what the Ministry and the Daily Prophet are saying. She orchestrates the rehabilitation of his reputation. She exhorts him to work harder at Occlumency. She does his detective work for him. However, I think this role is temporary; the *real* captain of the fight against Voldemort - Dumbledore or perhaps Harry himself - will reassert himself in Book 6. *Ginny acknowledges that she would rather be chaser, but instead takes Harry's place as Seeker, and does a creditable job as his substitute. Also, for the first time Ginny becomes actively involved in the Trio's efforts against the dual threat of Umbridge and Voldemort. She seems poised to take on the dual role of on- and off-pitch Chaser to Harry's Seeker in Book 6, paralleling her brother's role as Harry's Keeper. *OOP also introduces new off-pitch Chasers, including Luna Lovegood and various members of the Order on whom Harry must rely for help (remember that well-placed Memory Charm . . .). The Beaters. I said in my earlier post that the Beaters' job is to create chaos by disrupting their opponents while protecting their own team. I also noted that Beaters tend to have a certain disregard for rules. Wildfire Whizbangs? A swamp in the corridor? I think the Twins get an "Outstanding" for their efforts to disrupt Umbridge. And then, the Twins were expelled from the Quidditch team, foreshadowing their departure from Hogwarts before Umbridge could turn them over to Filch for whipping. In short, Quidditch in OOP highlights the importance of Harry's team. Harry fails to carry the Quidditch team as he has done for the last several years. In fact, the Quidditch team nearly collapses without him. Gryffindor ultimately prevailed, though, because others picked up the slack. The Chasers did their job and more, and Ron finally came through when the chips were down and hopes were fading. (Fred and George, however, seemed to be irreplaceable. ;-} ) Debbie * Mandy (ghingapuss) posted the same idea earlier today, suggesting in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88019 that Hermione's hypothetical role is Quidditch team coach. I had already written this part, but she deserves equal credit. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erikal at magma.ca Sun Jan 4 06:13:35 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:13:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: <027201c3d289$e378c080$eca31a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 88056 Rai-chan:> wrote: >Anyway, what I'm going to ask is if >whether you think Harry would still be >interested in Cho Chang or not since in >OOP, he was thinking that he doesn't >care whether Cho's going out with other >guys. So does that mean he's not >interested in her anymore??? I think it's safe to say that Harry's pretty well through with Cho. Have you ever heard the expression "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach"? It may not work in real life, but in the HP books Harry's stomach is a handy indicator of his feelings for Cho. The first time he saw Cho in PoA "he felt a slight jolt in the region of his stomach" (192 UK). His reaction to her is similar after that, but things change about halfway through OoP. In OoP his stomach goes from doing back-flips in the first half of the book, to giving "an unpleasant lurch" (UK 504) after the Valentine's Day debacle, to "a feeble lurch" accompanied by a "_slight_ twinge of jealousy" (603-- emphasis added) after the fight about Marietta, to neither jealousy nor anything else at the end of the book I think Harry's lessening reaction suggests that his infatuation with Cho has run its course. >so who do you think he'll be paired up >with in Book 6? Hermione (Nahh!! I >think she's paired up with Ron)? Ginny >(who knows?)? I happen to be an avid H/H shipper so I quite disagree with your statement about Hermione and Ron. That said, I don't think Harry's going to be jumping into a new relationship in book six. He's just lost his godfather and found out about the prophecy; I don't think romance will be his primary concern. I do hope that he will eventually end up with Hermione, but I can't see this happening until book seven-- and probably the end of the book at that. Best Erika (Wolfraven) For friendly shipping discussion join us at The Great Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGreatDebate [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Jan 4 04:48:19 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:48:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "die, ron, die" References: Message-ID: <001901c3d27d$f9d5f700$5902a8c0@Belkin> No: HPFGUIDX 88057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think > one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. Here is > the summary of the theory. > > (2) The main clue is the chess game at the end of PS/SS (ch. 16). > Ron had already demonstrated his skill at Wizards Chess, and in the > game at the end of the book he commands the pieces and sacrifices > himself so that Harry can get to the stone and defeat LV. > In chess, Knights usually don't last to the end of the game, but are > sacrificed. Why didn't JKR put Ron on the King or Queen where he > would be relatively safe rather than on a minor piece between his > friends? It is a foreshadowing of what is to come. My short answer to this question is not that Ron will die (I think he won't, though your post does an excellent job of laying out the clues in favor) but that Ron became a knight because that is what he is. I'm no expert on knighthood (or chivalry, which I'll get to next), but both Harry and Ron are knights of a sort. Harry could be said to be a knight errant on a quest, except that he is reluctant to take on that role. Ron, Harry's sidekick, recalls the knight as vassal who has sworn to protect and defend his lord, even if the cost is his life. Ron hasn't sworn loyalty in so many words, but he does so in his actions. In the only episode where he failed to support Harry, in GoF after Harry was chosen a Triwizard champion, his failure is arguably motivated by a belief that Harry had betrayed him. (Dicentra wrote two excellent posts entitled Anatomy of a Rift: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52038 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52039 sets this out in great detail.) The other aspect of Ron as knight is his chivalry. Yes, I know he is lacking in courtly manners. However, every time he takes out his wand in response to another Mudblood insult hurled at Hermione, he's playing the knight, defending the lady's honour. It does not matter that he comes across more like Sancho Panzo than Lancelot. In his own way, he is defending her honor. And while he whines about a lot of things, he never complains about any injuries he suffers in her defense. Remember how cheerfully he belched those slugs? Why did Ron not choose the King position for himself? I'm no more a chess expert than a medieval expert, but I think one part of the answer is that he would not have been safe as King, since the objective of the game is to checkmate the King. He would also be away from the action, since the other pieces protect the King. The other reason is that Ron did not see himself as a king, but rather as a vassal. Even so, he was allowed to be "King" ever so briefly in OOP, when he saved - literally - the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor. However, he had this opportunity only because Harry had taken himself out of the game (with Umbridge's assistance), oddly enough by reacting in a very Ron-like way to an insult against Lily, and Ron allowed himself to bask in the glory for only a short while before being jolted back to reality. Harry might have been a more appropriate choice for the King piece, since it was Harry that needed to advance and therefore needed to be protected. But the bishop piece he actually took also seems appropriate (especially if he is to become a Christ-like figure as some have suggested). Clergy were frequently political leaders in medieval times, and knights fought for the Church in the Crusades, so there doesn't seem anything odd about a knight being the vassal of a bishop. Vmonte wrote: > The Quidditch positions may also be symbolic. Absolutely. The Keeper role is essentially the same role as the Knight role. The Keeper protects and defends the goal hoops by making "saves" that buy time for the offensive players, especially Harry as Seeker. But I covered that in my last post, so I won't bore anyone by needless repetition. If Ron becomes team > captain, then he will lead an army of children (he will be their > strategist). Also, Ron's position is Keeper, so he will act as a > goalie to block shots (or the shot that is heading for Harry). Ron > may sacrifice himself and take a fatal hit for Harry. He might take a fatal hit. However, there are clues that he might survive the sacrifice, as he did in PS/SS. One of my favorites is from the first Divination lesson, in ch. 6 of PoA, when Harry reads Ron's tea leaves, and predicts that Ron will have "'trials and suffering' - sorry about that - but there's a thing that could be the sun . . . hang on . . . that means 'great happiness' . . . so you're going to suffer but be very happy." Despite the death-and-resurrection symbolism that appears in some of the books, I don't see how a sacrificial death would be consistent with "great happiness", nor do I think achieving his Erised dreams would qualify, either. (I've predicted that, too -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/63474 -along with a suggestion that it is Harry who will make the ultimate sacrifice; after all, Harry and Ron got up from the Christmas dinner table at the same time.) So, either Ron survives, or Harry has no talent at Divination (remember how Harry predicted his own death by decapitation?) Debbie Who learned about chess from reading The Annotated Alice [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Jan 4 05:33:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:33:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! References: Message-ID: <003c01c3d284$5172cd20$5902a8c0@Belkin> No: HPFGUIDX 88058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > However, in my opinion, the circumstantial evidence points to Snape spying > on Voldemort himself. It just doesn't *feel* like the foot-stomping red > herrings we've seen before (although I may be wrong). For instance--Harry > didn't tell Snape that his memory of Rookwood had been from Voldemort's > perspective. We are not told whether the memory itself told Snape what it > was, but from what Snape mentions: "that man and that room"--he recognized > them and knew what they were, and what Harry's seeing them meant. I'm not sure how this suggests one way or the other whether Snape was in contact with Voldemort himself. Snape would not have needed access to Voldemort's memories to be able to identify Rookwood, and he might have recognized the room from his past as a DE as well. I've always thought Snape's comment (which Alla quoted) was carefully constructed *not* to suggest that Snape was in physical contact with Voldemort. The full quote: > > "it is not up to you to find out what the Dark lord is saying to his > > Death Eaters. > > No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. .... > > "Yes, Potter", he said, his eyes glinting, "That's my job. Now, if > > you are ready, we will start again..." (OoP, p.531) Snape refers "what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." He can learn that by spying on the Death Eaters; he does not need to be in contact with Voldemort himself. He's in enough danger even by having contact with the DEs, especially if they are also talented at Occlumency/Legilimency, as you suggest Lucius is. Moreover, the Occlumency lesson at issue took place two weeks after Harry saw Rookwood kneeling before him, certainly long enough for Snape to have paid a visit to him and uncovered that memory. Debbie who always thought Voldemort has reason to suspect Snape of being the one who told Dumbledore he was after the Potters [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Sun Jan 4 06:01:59 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:01:59 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88059 justcarol67 at y...> wrote: > Since Lucius is so slippery and a breakout of the sort that freed > Bellatrix et al. would look very bad, I'm predicting that Lucius will > find a way to buy or talk his way out, to get Fudge back into his > pocket and/or convince him of his innocence. (If he were a Muggle, > he'd threaten to sue Fudge for false imprisonment and defamation of > character, but we've yet to seen any Wizard lawyers.) > Anyone else have an idea how Lucius might escape and still have some > influence in the WW? Or do you all think we've seen the last of Lucius > and his mantle, such as it is, will pass to Draco? Jo replies: I certainly don't think that we've seen the last of Lucius Malfoy but I can't see him regaining anything like his former position of influence at the Ministry or in the non-DE wizarding world. Firstly, Cornelius Fudge is on very, very thin ice as far as his real influence as MOM at this point. He can no longer deny what he's seen with his own eyes right in the lobby of the Ministry. He's whimpering, faltering, taking direction from Dumbledore, and making statements to the Daily Prophet concerning "Lord - Thingy"'s return. He's even having the Ministry distribute guides to home defense (which to me seems his most pathetic gesture of all). Even if Lucius (or Narcissa) were to somehow put him under an Imperius Curse in order to get him to drop all charges, it wouldn't be something that Fudge could do unilaterally. Remember too, that Dumbledore has been reinstated as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. No, I really think that Fudges' glory days are over and he'll be lucky to escape being imprisoned for corruption if the evidence of his ties to Mr. Malfoy ever become public. I do agree that Lucius won't be in Azkaban for long though and that with his financial resources, he'll be able to operate undercover as a very effective member of Voldemort's team. As far as Draco's concerned, I think we'll see him be drawn into the real fight for the first time as he will very likely be a valuable tool for Lucius to use against Dumbledore and the Order. It'll be really interesting to see how skillfully Snape handles him in book 6. I can't wait! Jo Serenadust, rubbing her hands gleefully From jakejensen at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 06:06:16 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:06:16 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <002101c3d276$de42cec0$2059aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88060 WHY a vampire? A good question, but one with many answers. I am always astounded by those who think Snape being a vampire would be a cheap trick or some other less than satisfactory move by JKR. I think it would amazing. 1. Explanation. For some reason Snape and LV parted ways. Why? If Snape was a vampire (and LV found out) then he might have been ridiculed or demoted within the DE (one can think of countless reasons why Snape's vampirism might be the missing link in this plotline....maybe LV experimented on his DEs and Snape was turned into a vampire in the process...and for this Snape came to hate LV). It would also explain why DD trusts Snape. Snape will not go back to LV because LV views him as not-pure (or something along these lines). 2. Irony. Hitler promoted a physical image he did not live up to. LV is a parody of this (i.e., he is not a pure-blood). Snape might be the same way (the source of his anger is his own feeling of difference). 3. Explanation (2). Snape has a lot of strange traits (great might reader, likes the dungeon, etc.) that all make sense if he is a vampire. They make sense if he is not too, admittedly. 4. Why Snape hates Lupin so much. Sure, Snape never really likes anyone who is DADA, but he constantly questions Lupin's hiring. This would make sense if he had been denied the job due to his status (which, a JKR interview supports....she said DD wouldn't give Snape the job because it would bring out the "worst" in him). Then Lupin gets the job. Snape is standing around going, what the heck!?! He can be DADA and I can't? 5. Lupin would use the vampire essay if Snape was a vampire. Not to be mean, but to send a message that he didn't appreciate Snape's actions and to stand up for himself. This isn't Lupin being mean. That's just a few reasons, Jake From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 05:11:47 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:11:47 -0000 Subject: Blood in Paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88061 julwalker7614726 at a wrote: All these ideas are great, but something "bewitchedbyhp" said in his/her last post caught my eyes: BLOOD LINES (my emphasis)(the line Harry wrote in his blood) and where have we seen the importance of blood lines as in lineage. Actually, all through the series, but most recently at 12 Grimmauld Pl with the Black Family Tree. There's a connection there somehow, I just can't figure it out. Any help is encouraged. Possibly a link between HP & LV? (other than the GOF blood swapping thing. Maybe, relatives? vmonte responds: There is a wizard geneology book back at the OOTP headquarters that someone will probably read in book 6 or 7. Sirius uses the book to smash a spiderlike thing that grabs onto Harry (during the house decontamination chapter). Maybe someone will trace back their origins and make a startling discovery. Here is the page that mentions the book-- p116, U.S. version, OOTP: "Sirius seized it (a spider like instrument on Harry's arm) and smashed it with a heavy book entitled Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy." Some fans have suggested that Harry is related to Slytherin via his mother, Lily. The books keep mentioning how Harry looks like his father, except for his eyes which are like his mother's. The eyes might be a Salazar Slytherin trait. vmonte From saitaina at wizzards.net Sun Jan 4 08:51:49 2004 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:51:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood in Paper References: Message-ID: <000e01c3d2a0$0f2ccb20$6f371c40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 88062 vmonte wrote: I think it's more likely, if the book does come into play (or really any wizard genealogy), that it would be either following back James' blood line or another characters. While Harry's eyes MAY have some importance, I really just think that Lily is a muggle-born, a genetic quirk rather then a long lost descendent of Slytherin. Unless of course someone else in the family turns up with magical powers. After all, great importance was shown to pure-blooded wizards and witches being related in some way. Although that does lend itself to Lily too so...*shrugs*. Saitaina **** Brave and bold they're not. They ain't the bravest heroes...but they're the only ones we've got. http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 10:22:18 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:22:18 -0000 Subject: Let's hear it for good old Snapey! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88063 Still behind by about 200 posts, I've chased this interesting thread from where I left off at New Year's Eve to the present. It's actually part of a subject that drives me crazy: just what is Dumbledore doing and not doing with regard to Harry and Voldemort? Sometimes I am almost ready to believe pretty much everything Kneasy, the Seargent Majorette or Talisman propose, and sometimes I am just about ready to climb aboard the Badd Angst. Gah! I wish I could settle on a theory; it would give me so much more of a stable point of view from which to read the books, as well as a real position to argue from, which is much more fun than continually asking questions. Okay, rant over. Something Talisman said in a reply to Alla sparked a question in me. Talisman gives a succinct summary of her view of the purpose of Occlumency lessons: > > Even without exploring the bigger picture, you can find concrete > canon for the facts that 1) DD knew the effect Occlumency lessons > would have on Harry; 2) DD knew the Occlumency lessons weren't > continuing; 3) DD knew Voldemort would try to lure Harry to the > prophecy orb; 4) DD knew Sirius would go to Harry's rescue, 5) DD > anticipated that Voldemort would possess Harry , and 6) DD hoped-- > and then knew--that Harry`s heightened feelings of love for his lost > godfather would repel Voldemort and allow DD to resume contact with > Harry. Annemehr: Talisman, regarding your point: 1) DD knew the effect of Occlumency lessons: suddenly (or did you ever say this before?) I have to wonder if what Snape was doing was even the *real* way to teach Occlumency? After all, Harry is innately good at resisting Imperius and Veelas, but for some mysterious reason can seem to make little headway in these lessons. He had only two breakthroughs: one, at the beginning, where Snape got too close to the Cho memory, and then nothing for a very long time until (two months later) Harry managed the Protego charm (ch. 26, US p.591). Besides, though some have posted that Harry never even tried to learn Occlumency, I see canon evidence to the contrary. In ch. 25, beginning on p. 553 (US): "In fact Harry would have given a great deal to be making as much progress at Occlumency as Neville was making during D.A. meetings. Harry's sessions with Snape, which had started badly enough, were not improving; on the contrary, Harry felt he was getting worse with every lesson. [skip several paragraphs to p. 554] "'It's lessons with Snape that are making it worse,' said Harry flatly. 'I'm getting sick of my scar hurting, and I'm getting bored walking down that corridor every night.' He rubbed his forehead angrily. 'I just wish the door would open, I'm sick of standing staring at it --' 'That's not funny,' said Hermione sharply. 'Dumbledore doesn't want you to have dreams about that corridor at all, or he wouldn't have asked Snape to teach you Occlumency. You're just going to have to work a bit harder in you lessons.' 'I am working!' said Harry, nettled. 'You try it sometime, Snape trying to get inside your head, it's not a bundle of laughs, you know!'" So Harry says he's working at it, and there is no indication that he's lying, no feelings of guilt that he hasn't tried. And immediately following this is when Ron wonders whether Snape isn't deliberately trying to get Harry's mind more open to LV. Then, ch. 26 (p. 577 US): "After a few minutes, however, he remembered that he was supposed to be emptying his mind of all emotions before he slept, as Snape kept instructing him at the end of every Occlumency lesson. He tried for a moment or two, but the thought of Snape on top of memories of Umbridge merely increased his sense of grumbling resentment, and he found himself focusing instead on how much he loathed the pair of them...." And of course, he fell asleep and began to dream about the door again. And I will add here that Snape certainly seemed to take great care to keep Harry's feelings of anger and resentment quite well stirred up during Potions classes, didn't he? Finally, in ch.28 (p. 636 US), just before Harry explores Snape's pensieve: "Harry spent the whole of the next day dreading what Snape was going to say if he found out how much farther into the Department of Mysteries he had penetrated during his last dream. With a surge of guilt he realized that he had not practiced Occlumency once since their last lesson: There had been too much going on since Dumbledore had left. He was sure he would not have been able to empty his mind even if he had tried. He doubted, however, whether Snape would accept that excuse.... He attempted a little last-minute practice during classes that day, but it was no good, Hermione kept asking him what was wrong whenever he fell silent trying to rid himself of all thought and emotion and, after all, the best moment to empty his brain was not while teachers were firing review questions at the class." I assert that the first paragraph of this quote implies that Harry had been trying to practice Occlumency *before* the previous lesson. This quote is the last I could find about practice before the Pensieve scene; I'm not sure whether there are any more before or after this or not (dang hard to find anything in this book). So, yes, not only did Dumbledore know that the lessons would open Harry's mind further to LV, but I'm not even sure those truly *were* Occlumency lessons, even if Harry was distracted by wanting to see behind the door. Though Harry does sometimes have trouble learning something (Summoning Charms), Occlumency ought to be one of his strengths, as it is DADA and supposedly related to resisting Imperius. Though it's true Harry feels strongly LV's wish to get behind the black door, it's also true that he does seem to attempt to learn, but is frustrated by not really knowing how and by too many strong emotions (of which Snape is a prime contributor). And after all, the wish to see behind the black door is not Harry's fault; rather it's the very reason for the lessons themselves, whether one believes DD wishes Harry to see the full vision or not. If Harry ever does learn and understand Occlumency, what will he think of Snape's lessons then? Talisman's points 2-5 I agree with, and then we come to point #6: Talisman: 6) DD hoped-- > and then knew--that Harry`s heightened feelings of love for his lost > godfather would repel Voldemort and allow DD to resume contact with > Harry. Annemehr: This refers to Talisman's theory that DD arranged for Sirius' death because he believed it would be what inured Harry to LV's presence in Harry's mind. I once posted a long explanation about why I am sure DD could not have killed Sirius himself. Though I still think that is true, very shortly after that a whole thread started about how Lupin could have done it, making my post completely irrelevant! So, I am back to square one as far as this issue goes, too (drat!). One thing I am really beginning to expect, though, is that Harry will begin to find some things out about what DD has done or is doing which will put DD in a very bad light, and one of the pivotal points in the series will be whether Harry decides to trust him or not. I find this prospect delicious, and I think a lot of Talisman's theories may enter into this, and whether Harry will believe any of it is true or accept any of it as right. Talisman: > I must say that I am now leaning toward an idea that demetra1225 > sent me, to the effect that Sirius acceded to this plan. Annemehr: I could believe that Sirius would give his life, and even that DD might ask it of him, but then why the look of shock on Sirius' face as he fell through the veil? Maybe it was just the timing or something? > Talisman, > Who always appreciates a sense of humor, too. Annemehr who does, too, and wishes she could oblige, but is not very confident in her ability to be funny just now... (turns out I'm writing this until after 5:00 a.m.) :P From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 12:03:52 2004 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:03:52 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88064 > sleepingdragonzz allysmom at w... wrote: > I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if > Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, but > refused. She does seem to know a great deal about the magical world, > even though she would rather pretend that it didn't exist. Wouldn't > it be interesting if Aunt Petunia had some magical powers that she > has tried to "squash" out through the years? As we all know, you > can't "squash" out the magical power of someone, even though Uncle > Vernon and Aunt Petunia had tried to do so with Harry. Anyone have > any thoughts?? > > vmonte responded: > In an interview with Rowling, the author said that someone would gain > magical powers late in life and that it was something that is very > rare in the wizard world. It would be very interesting if it was > Petunia. > Would she try to hide her power or will she be forced to use it in > order to save herself or her family??? Diana L. This seems like an interesting scenario to me, and it would be fun to read. Wouldn't that rock Harry's world? LOL I could see Petunia NOT being happy about and Vernon would be apoplectic! Petunia would be a rather dangerous witch in my opinion - her nosiness would be even more extraordinary. Would she be ashamed or triumphant that she finally got something that Lily had? vmonte wrote: > Do you think that Dudley was meant to be a target of the Dementors > (along with Harry) at the begining of OOTP? If so, Dudley's brush > with a dementor may have released forgotten memories from his > infancy. He may have remembered something important that will come > out in book 6 or 7. What if the encounter with the Dementors released > a vision having to do with Voldemort, his mother, or even the death > of Potter's parents or Grand parents. Could Dudley's worst fear be > that he was previously attacked by a Dementor as an infant? (Dudley > and Harry are the same age--it's possible he saw something that he > shouldn't have.) Diana L. writes: I would have liked to have heard what Dudley heard when he was near the dementors. To me, Dudley is just not used to not getting his way when he wants something, so his horrible memories probably have to do with the few times he didn't get his way - like when his dad hit him about the head in PS/SS for holding the family up when Vernon was trying leave the house to avoid Harry's Hogwarts letters. I think Dudley might have been even more upset if the memories recalled around the dementors involved memories of events with magic in them. I think the dementors only wanted Dudley because he was with Harry at the time and they wanted to leave no witnesses. The dementors would have enjoyed doing Umbridge's dirty work because it also dovetailed nicely with their affiliation with Voldemort. Besides, the dementors probably enjoy sucking out people's souls and wouldn't pass up a freebie like Dudley. vmonte wrote: > Did Voldemort get to Petunia before he got word from Wormtail about > James and Lily Potter? Did he threaten her family? > > Do you think Petunia sold out her parents in order to protect her own > family??? > > The only reason Harry wasn't thrown out of the house in the begining > of OOTP was because Petunia received a Howler. As soon as the Howler > came she completely changed her attitude and stated that Harry must > stay. Diana L. writes: Before reading OoP, the idea of Petunia being willing to sell out her sister or parents for the sake of her own family would have seemed more likely, but after this book, I don't see it as a possibility. However loathsome Petunia is toward Harry, I know from OoP that she lets Harry live with them because she knows it keeps him alive. Also, Petunia knows that Voldemort being back is a very scary prospect. How she knows that Voldemort is something to be quite frightened of, we can only speculate so far. Seeing as Lily and James would still have been at Hogwarts during part of Voldemort's first rise to power, it's quite possible Petunia overheard them discussing Voldemort while Lily was still living at home. I believe that if Voldemort had met or even knew about Petunia and her family, he would have killed them long before Harry ever came to live with them. Judging by her reaction in the quote below, Petunia knows Voldemort is a very bad guy and I honestly can't see her throwing her own nephew to him to be murdered despite her long- repressed anger and jealousy toward her sister. Petunia is awful - but not THAT awful. I also want to add that it was Vernon that flipped out about Harry being a danger to Dudley and wanting to kick Harry out of the house - Petunia was not heard from during his tirade against Harry. The Howler sent by Dumbledore reminded Petunia to stand up to her husband and keep Harry but I honestly wonder if Petunia would have been reluctant to kick Harry out even without the reminder from Dumbledore. According to Dumbledore's statements [quoted below] to Harry, Petunia KNEW that Harry was in danger and that his only chance of survival was to stay with her family. That gave me a very different perception of Petunia...she does care, even if just a little, about Harry, even though she diligently pretends not to. QUOTE: [Harry's just said that Voldemort is back.] "Back?" whispered Aunt Petunia. She was looking at Harry as she had never looked at him before. And all of a sudden, for the very first time in his life, Harry fully appreciated that Aunt Petunia was his mother's sister. He could not have said why this hit him so very powerfully at this moment. All he knew was that he was not the only person in the room who had an inkling of what Lord Voldemort being back might mean. Aunt Petunia had never in her life looked at him like that before. Her large, pale eyes (so unlike her sister's) were not narrowed in dislike or anger. They were wide and fearful. The furious pretense that Aunt Petunia had maintained all Harry's life - that there was no magic and no world other than the world she inhabited with Uncle Vernon - seemed to have fallen away. UNQUOTE QUOTE [OoP, Chapter 37] "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn- " "But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "she may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwilling, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I place upon you. your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shiled I could give you." "I still don't-" "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years." "I thought," said Dumbledore, inclining his head slightly, "that she might need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you. I suspected the dementor attack might have awoken her to the dangers of having you as a surrogate son." "It did," said Harry quietly, "Well - my uncle more than her. He wanted to chuck me out, but after the Howler came she - she said I had to stay." UNQUOTE vmonte wrote: >The fact that Petunia > was the one who said that Harry must stay (after the howler came) > means that someone must have reminded her of something. I find it > hard to believe that she would agree to protect Harry, so, DD must > have made a deal to protect her family as well...as long as Harry was > welcome in her house. > Are Dudley's magical powers being restrained by DD? Diana L. writes: I don't find it that hard to believe that Petunia agreed to protect Harry. Because Petunia is obviously frightened of Voldemort. Did Dumbledore tell Petunia about the prophecy? I can't see him doing so when he's so anxious to keep Voldemort from knowing the full prophecy. After all, if Voldmort got hold of Petunia, Vernon or Dudley, he could easily extract whatever info he wants from them with just a small amount of torture, including the full prophecy if Petunia knows it. Yet Dumbledore must have told Petunia something important because she knew Harry's life was in danger and that by letting him live with his mother's sister he would be protected from that danger. While I feel some small love for her sister or her parents must have surfaced when she was struggling NOT to take on baby Harry, it's also possible that Dumbledore might have given her some hint to Harry's importance to the world, whether wizarding or muggle. Maybe the protection offered to Petunia's family by taking Harry is simply the same general protection offered to the rest of the world by providence of Harry's prophecied destiny as the vanquisher of the Dark Lord? If Dudley ever develops magical abilities, I would be even more upset than Harry! Dudley doesn't deserve magical powers. Diana L. From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 12:29:18 2004 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:29:18 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape & would the Order have saved Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88065 Jo replies: > > I certainly don't think that we've seen the last of Lucius Malfoy > but I can't see him regaining anything like his former position of > influence at the Ministry or in the non-DE wizarding world. > > I do agree that Lucius won't be in Azkaban for long though and that with his financial resources, he'll be able to operate undercover as a very effective member of Voldemort's team. As far as Draco's concerned, I think we'll see him be drawn into the real fight for the first time as he will very likely be a valuable tool for Lucius to use against Dumbledore and the Order. It'll be really > interesting to see how skillfully Snape handles him in book 6. > > I can't wait! Diana L. writes: I also think Lucius won't regain his former 'respectable' standing in the WW. But I also think he has enough money and banked power to hide well from any aurors out to get him after he escaped from Azkaban. I can see Lucius bribing a guard to get out of Azkaban, but the aurors and the ministry won't be ones being bribed so they'll pursue him. As for Draco still being a student at Hogwarts, I wonder about that. Would Lucius still send his son to a school presided over by Dumbledore? If he did send him back to Hogwarts purely to use Draco as a spy or saboteur, Dumbledore and McGonagall would know right away and put a stop to him. I can see the professors keeping a very close eye on the sons and daughters of those DEs arrested in the MoM at the end of OoP. Dumbledore does give everyone a chance to make their own choices, so he obviously wouldn't kick out Draco, Crabbe, Goyle or Nott just because their fathers were arrested as DEs. Dumbledore will most likely give them a chance to choose the good side against Voldemort, but he'll come down harshly if they choose the Dark Side and mess with Harry or anyone else at Hogwarts. Your comment about Snape being able to handle Draco makes me wonder how effective Snape will be at keeping tabs on the DEs children. Snape probably wouldn't mind if a few accidents befell Harry or any of the Gryffindors, but will stop short at standing by to see them killed, as evidenced by Snape telling Crabbe to loosen his grip on Neville before he chokes him to death. Will Draco try to enlist Snape into helping his dad? Will any of the DEs children confide in Snape about their plans for sabotage or revenge? Probably not, but if they do it will certainly test Snape's will power when he so much wants to see Harry crushed (even if not crushed to death). I wonder what Snape was planning to do, if anything, if Hermione hadn't come with her plan to keep Umbridge from using the Cruciatus curse on Harry? Sure, Snape informed the order what Harry believed about Sirius being Voldemort's prisoner and he knew that Harry and Hermione led Umbridge into the forest and that they didn't return from the forest, but would Snape have intervened to keep Harry from being tortured? If Snape had informed the order about Umbridge having Harry, Hermione, Ginny, Luna, Ron and Neville held captive in her office, would any of the order have eventually intervened if Harry and the others hadn't escaped on their own? Diana L. From yolandacarroll at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 13:12:37 2004 From: yolandacarroll at yahoo.com (yolandacarroll) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:12:37 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape & would the Order have saved Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88066 > Diana L. writes: As for Draco still being a student at Hogwarts, I wonder about > that. Would Lucius still send his son to a school presided over by > Dumbledore? It wasn't Lucius decision to send Draco to Hogwarts in the first place. Lucius wanted to send Draco to Drumstrang, but his mother didn't want him going to school so far away. With his father in jail, it would be his mother's decision now, even if it hadn't been so in the past. Even if Lucius gets out of jail officially he will be in hiding and won't be able to stop Narcissca from sending Draco to Hogwarts. Besides, the boy has two years left. It would be unfair to him to force him to change schools at this point. Yolanda From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 4 13:22:32 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:22:32 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" Carol: > But see our earlier discussions of Mark > Evans, who may turn out to be a muggle-born second or third cousin of > Harry's (showing up at Hogwarts in Book 6), which would mean that > there are Squibs posing as Muggles somewhere in the Evans line, and > Wizard parents for those Squibs. Just do a site search for Mark Evans > and you'll find the relevant posts. > Geoff: If it helps, I tried to pull together the various bits of data and produce a workable theory in message 85255. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 4 16:02:03 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Jan 2004 16:02:03 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1073232123.23.88356.m20@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88068 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, January 4, 2004 Time: 11:00AM - 7:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) Hi everyone! Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. *Chat times are not changing for Daylight Saving/Summer Time.* Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. Go into any Yahoo chat room and type /join HP:1 For further info, see the Humongous BigFile, section 3.3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html#33 Hope to see you there! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 4 16:23:42 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:23:42 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Whose evidence? I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I'm about to give up, not on my belief that Snape is not a vampire but on convincing people who are determined to believe that he is. < I believe Amanda was referring to my post 35299, which gathers the vampire evidence pre-OOP. The significance of the frosty temperature of Snape's office escaped my notice and I thank Jake for this useful addition to Snapelore. OOP evidence, briefly: Snape's refusal to take meals with the Order His preference for shade in the Pensieve scene His supernaturally acute hearing, if he could actually hear what James and co were saying, and this was not a trick of the Penseive. Carol: >"Snape threw back his cloak and opened his mouth to reveal his heretofore concealed fangs, which were dripping with blood. He reached for Harry and was just about to bite his neck when Dumbledore walked into the room. 'Stupefy!'" All right, I'm presenting the idea in a ridiculous light, but that's how it strikes me. What I don't understand is why anyone, even the most virulent Snape hater, would *want* Snape to be a vampire. What purpose does it serve? How does it advance the plot? He's a complex character with no need for supernatural explanations for his attitudes and actions. I much prefer real, human motivations.< You might want to look at the Mysteries FAQ http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/mysteries.html under Severus Snape for past discussion of this. I don't think Rowling's point in making Snape a vampire would be to have him suddenly succumb to bloodlust, any more than that was her reason to make Lupin a werewolf. I'm not a Snape hater, far from it, nor am I a huge fan of vampire-fiction. Mostly I see Snape's character as a mirror and foil of Lupin's. Lupin wants desperately to "pass" as a normal wizard and his whole life has been colored by his inability to do this. Vampire!Snape, OTOH, *can* pass, and I think Rowling means to show us that this too has a cost. In any case, the desire to be accepted by human society is the most human sort of motivation I can think of. Pippin From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Jan 4 17:08:53 2004 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:08:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88070 jakedjensen wrote: > WHY a vampire? A good question, but one with many answers. I am > always astounded by those who think Snape being a vampire would be a > cheap trick or some other less than satisfactory move by JKR. I > think it would amazing. > I do not think it would be amazing. But then, I am not a Goth and have no interest in seeing my favorite character as a vampire. I guess that puts me in the 'JKR's cheap trick' group if it happened. > 1. Explanation. For some reason Snape and LV parted ways. Why? If > Snape was a vampire (and LV found out) then he might have been > ridiculed or demoted within the DE (one can think of countless > reasons why Snape's vampirism might be the missing link in this > plotline....maybe LV experimented on his DEs and Snape was turned > into a vampire in the process...and for this Snape came to hate LV). > It would also explain why DD trusts Snape. Snape will not go back to > LV because LV views him as not-pure (or something along these lines). > Far as LV knows, Snape is still a Death Eater. There is far more canon showing Snape as a spy then a vampire, pretending to be a Death Eater while reporting to the Order. A number of DEs avoided Azkaban by claiming to be 'controlled', then returning to LV's side soon as it was clear he was back in action. Thus.. Snape is likely a more or less respected DE, not ridiculed for being a 'vampire'. If he were not in good standing, he would not be effective as s spy. > 2. Irony. Hitler promoted a physical image he did not live up to. > LV is a parody of this (i.e., he is not a pure-blood). Snape might > be the same way (the source of his anger is his own feeling o > difference). > The problem with that idea, is that vampires are as pureblood as they were before they became vampires. Being as vampires are HUMANS who were made into vampires by other vampires. Being also as vampires are undead, their purity of blood doesn't matter as they cannot breed anyways. The source of Snape's anger seems more from growing up abused by his parents and schoolmates. > 3. Explanation (2). Snape has a lot of strange traits (great might > reader, likes the dungeon, etc.) that all make sense if he is a > vampire. They make sense if he is not too, admittedly. > What canon is there to suggest he LIKES the dungeons? Or likes much of anything? Maybe he just works there? I don't see any strange traits that I've not seen in any number of humans. I like caves, does that make me a bat? > 4. Why Snape hates Lupin so much. He hates Lupin for his being one of the Marauders, for being a close friend of James, for not being able to control James when Lupin was a prefect and for almost killing him as a teenager (Even though Lupin could not control that). He hates him because he is terrified that Lupin will turn into a wolf and finish what he failed to do back in school. Snape is also afraid that Lupin will hurt a student, which is a valid worry as Lupin did fail to take his potion on time, causing Snape to find him and Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, etc. > > 5. Lupin would use the vampire essay if Snape was a vampire. Not to > be mean, but to send a message that he didn't appreciate Snape's > actions and to stand up for himself. This isn't Lupin being mean. Red Herring. Besides, vampires are one of the things the kids are taught about anyways. There is NO WAY that Dumbledore would be so reckless as to hire a Vampire as a teacher. Werewolves are only part time monsters (full moons), but a vampire is a monster 24/7. Vampires must sleep in their native soil during the DAY, while Snape is teaching classes.. and Snape is also up late at night, catching students out of bed, so he likely has insomnia, which would make sense for someone who is a spy. Stress does that. Vampires are undead who feed on the blood of humans.. and noone is going to trust them in a job with children. 1. Snape has not been witnessed drinking blood. 2. Snape has not been witnessed sleeping in a coffin, box of dirt or anything like that. 3. Snape has not been witnessed during into a bat (or any other animals). 4. Snape has not been witnessed at any time with fangs. 5. Snape does not possess super human strength or he would have faired better against being bounced off a wall and knocked out by a few kids with wands. 6. Snape refereed a Quidditch game outside during the day and far as I know, Sunblock won't stop the sun from destroying a vampire as its not just UV rays that effect them. 7. Snape teaches classes during the daytime when all good little blood-suckers are asleep. 8. Vampires are not allowed to have wands as they are not 'humans' anymore by definition as they cannot overcome their bloodthirsty natures (despite what 'Buffy' fans think), unlike a Werewolf who can just lock themselves up on a full moon. 9. Snape bleeds. Undead don't bleed like humans. 10. There is no canon to suggest anyone can be a half-vampire. Its like being pregnant, you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'. You are either a vampire or not a vampire. You can't say "I only suck blood on every other Tues." (Too many 'Vampire Hunter D' fans thinking Snape is like 'D'. Note that even D can't control his base nature all the time and 'vamps out' when under a lot of stress or too close to a tasty neck. And I don't consider Anime a good source of canon for a world whose magical creatures so far have been based more on old legends, not new movies.) 11. Wearing black no more makes a person a vampire then wearing green makes a person a leprechaun. 12. Living or working in a dungeon does not a vampire make. It might make a grumpy, ill-tempered person who lacks a good tan though. 13. If everyone with black eyes was a vampire, then Hagrid would be one too. Black eyes exist in real life, though it is linked with color blindness. I would say there is more evidence for Sirius being a vampire then Snape, as Sirius could turn into a huge black dog and slept on dirt (in the cave). ;) Jazmyn From gawain at ofir.dk Sun Jan 4 17:56:14 2004 From: gawain at ofir.dk (romerskesims) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:56:14 -0000 Subject: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88071 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rai-chan:>" wrote: > While I was reading HP Book 1-3, it never entered my head that there would be some sort of love stuffs and pair-ups by J.K Rowling. But since that Yule Ball in GF, well in changed my mind. Anyway, what I'm going to ask is if whether you think Harry would still be interested in Cho Chang or not since in OOP, he was thinking that he doesn't care whether Cho's going out with other guys. So does that mean he's not interested in her anymore??? If yes, so who do you think he'll be paired up with in Book 6? Hermione (Nahh!! I think >she's paired up with Ron)? Ginny (who knows?)? I think he'll end up with Luna Lovegood. She's a character that just sees Harry as Harry and not as "The Boy Who Lived". The fact that she seems quite uninterested in his fame might just be what Harry needs...(I have NEVER believed in Harry/Hermione, they're just friends.) From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sun Jan 4 18:09:08 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:09:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office References: Message-ID: <005501c3d2ed$d95f7620$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88072 wrote: {Pippin wrote:} OOP evidence, briefly: Snape's refusal to take meals with the Order (Anne's Response} Which could as easily be, as I and others have pointed out, that Snape does not wish to have any more memories of the Order members as friends and.or allies than is absolutely necasary so that there's far less memories in his mind to support that fact should Voldy start seriously digging for proof that it's true. Or, if you really want to discard that theory, then there's the one that also fits in which is Snape is a truly antisocial bastard and although he works with these people sees no reason to sup with them. Third reason? It's Sirius's house. How many of you would be willing to eat dinner in the house of the person you most dislike, and certainly have difficulties being civil to if you didn't HAVE to be there? There are far more reasons than Vampirism for him not to stay at Grimauld Place...not to mention that he DOES eat with the other teachers at Hogwarts during dinner, in full veiw of students--so not needing normal human sustanence doesn't hold much water either. {Pippin wrote} His preference for shade in the Pensieve scene {Anne Wrote} Er...I prefer to sit in the shade myself when I'm reading outside...keeps the sunlight from glaring off the nice white (and sometimes even yellow or parchement) paper and blinding me. And I doubt that I would qualify as a vampire...even though I prefer night to day, have pale skin, (As well as reddish hair and green eyes--another supposed sign of vampirsim or at least witchcraft) thanks to my very celtic heritage, and can have a hell of a temper sometimes if something hits me just wrong. Also, back on topic, there are bathers in the lake, and people in warm weather clothing in that scene as well. So it may be a warm day--a perfectly good reason to sit in the shade and out of the 'hot' sun. Not to mention it's good cover when you're used to getting hunted down and bullied...until you get up and they see you, at any rate. ^^; {Pippin Wrote} His supernaturally acute hearing, if he could actually hear what James and co were saying, and this was not a trick of the Penseive. {Anne wrote} Well, I'd buy that if Rowling hadn't given us just as 'omniscient' a view during Crouch's trail scene from Dumbly's memories in the pensive. Even in that scene, Harry saw and heard from more than Dumbly's POV. In fact, in both cases, he was allowed quite a bit of movement to go where he wanted, and see what he wished to see. So unless Dumbly was ALSO a vamp with excellent hearing....I have to say that yes, it is possible that you can hear everything from a memory in a pensive, including things that are not in the immediate awareness of the person whose memory it happens to be. It's a scientific fact that the mind records everything *within range* of your senses and stores that information. As for what you choose to notice and keep in your concious memory or discard (Relegate to your unconcious mind) is up to the individual person and what they are likely to pay most attention to...so it's perfectly reasonable for Harry to have had access to more than JUST Severus's or Dumbledore's POV...especially considering that it looks like the memories are removed, whole cloth, from the mind itself and deposited into the pensive (A strand of silver--no detailing marks that can tell the remover where to 'snip' and 'paste' if they want certain POV to be excluded). {Pippin Wrote} I'm not a Snape hater, far from it, nor am I a huge fan of vampire-fiction. Mostly I see Snape's character as a mirror and foil of Lupin's. Lupin wants desperately to "pass" as a normal wizard and his whole life has been colored by his inability to do this. Vampire!Snape, OTOH, *can* pass, and I think Rowling means to show us that this too has a cost. In any case, the desire to be accepted by human society is the most human sort of motivation I can think of {Anne Wrote} I don't think it's a question of who hates Snape as to why the theories that put Snape in a bad light get argued against...I think its because most theories seem dead set on making him out to be some sort of bad guy, while ignoring the postion he's in. It's a black-and-white, all-or-nothing view point that makes no allowances, although plenty (and often what would be the same) allowances are given to the 'good guys' of the story. Thus far, the theories presented against him are that he hates/wants to kill/mistakes-him-for-dear-old-dad, Harry, that he's a vamp, that he'll betray the good guys in the end, that his temper in dealing with Harry and co makes him abusive, etc. And the thing is, is that he's a *most convienient* (and admittedly bad-tempered) target. If he told Harry the things he has told him in a friendly, non-aggressive way, no one would object. If he were as 'fun' to be around as Sirius was, people would love him, and be rooting for him in Snape's Worst Memory when James and Sirius went after him. If it wasn't pointed out that he was pale, greasy haired, and snaggled tooth at least once every book, folks would likely consider him 'handsome' with his black hair and eyes, and that would distance him a bit from the 'evil' stereotype, because they would relate better to him on a personal level (Because, admit it, most folks are highly influenced by looks--even if those 'looks' are merely talked about on the printed page. If he LOOKS that bad...there must be a reason for it...likely a 'bad' one). But because he's an ill-tempered, admittedly no-so-good-looking, pissy old codger, folks are determined to put him in the bad guy role, whether it's as DE, double agent, or abuser of children. Basically, folks don't like his style, so he MUST be bad. And adding vampirism to his list of 'sins' only seems 'right' in that type of thought process. It reminds me of an old 'fable' that my mom's work once had up on the employee refridgerator about a sparrow who was too stubborn to fly south for the winter, even though he knew (and had been told by several other animals) that he would die if he stayed. He ended up getting frozen, falling into a pile of cow manure, reviving from the warmth of the manure, starting to sing, and then getting eaten by a cat after it had dug him out of the manure he could not escape from by himself. The moral there? "Not everyone who helps you is your friend...not everyone who craps on you is your enemy. And if you're warm and happy in a pile of crap, keep your mouth shut". Admittedly, when Snape first came on the scene, I had no more love for him than the average Harry fan. In fact, I thought he was a right royal bastard. He IS mean, snarky, and not pleasant. But, as Rowling is revealing through the books, he has reason, and good ones, for why he is the way he is. The audience may not relate very well, because they have never been the adult survivor of an abusive household (one that has likely never had the benefit of a qualified councillor), have never had to dig themselves out of a wholly wrong situation they'd gotten themselves into (Like joining a murderous cult, which you could easily relate the DE to), have never had to be a spy for thier country, and against former friends and allies no less, have never been mercilessly bullied by the 'good guys' at school, and have never been talked down to and ignored for most of thier life (Even Dumbly tends to cut Snape off when he gets started). It's easy to discount someone when you haven't had those experiences...just as easy as assigning them a 'factual' trait that is based more on what people think they see, as opposed to what is there. Snape's situation requires both thought and the ability to re-evaluate him every time a new piece of information about him is presented. He is not a black-and-white character, and black-and-white thinking won't be accurate. Like real life, Snape is not easily defined, and shouldn't be. And that includes assigning him an 'obvious' trait like vampirism. Although it *would* help to illustrate that acceptance under false pretenses has a price, I think Rowling is already covering that with Hagrid and Madam Maxine (Who, although is obviously half-giant, does not acknowledge that fact, or allow it to be acknowledged in public), among others. There are more than enough half-humans and demi (non) humans to make that point very, very clear. She doesn't need Snape as a vampire to illustrate the point further. Geez....the windbag strikes again...eheheh....^^; Anne From as_ziggy at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 18:28:33 2004 From: as_ziggy at yahoo.com (as_ziggy) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:28:33 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88073 Hello to all at HP fo rGrownups, I just joined a few days ago and here I am venturing my first post. I read a few fanfics in which Snape not only had spied for Dumbledore but is still spying (up until Voldemort's defeat or other circumstances where Snape's secret has to be exposed). I began to wonder at the plausibility of it because I think there are a few clues that Voldemort might have picked up on that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore and not himself. One clue occurs in the Philosopher's Stone. Wouldn't Voldemort have suspected that Snape may have been loyal to the other side when Snape was constantly going out of his way to stop Quirrel from getting the stone? I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult to notice from the back of Quirrel's head. And even if he hadn't always hidden in Quirrel's turban, Quirrel would have at least had to explain why he hadn't gotten the stone yet. Another clue would be that Snape did not attend the Death Eater meeting in GoF when Voldemort returned and broke his followers out of Azkaban. Missing such an important meeting, I imagine, would be a huge offence and something that Voldemort noticed and should probably be suspicious about. In any case any suspicion on Voldemort's part should have made it impossible for Snape to continue to spy for the Order. I think the spying would have ended with Voldemort's first fall. If Snape did any spying after that it would probably only be on the Death Eaters who didn't get tossed in Azkaban and who still believed he was one of them. So now I'm wondering what you all think about Snape's spying career. Speak out =) Anna From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 19:28:08 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:28:08 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <005501c3d2ed$d95f7620$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Silverthorne Dragon" wrote: > wrote: > I don't think it's a question of who hates Snape as to why the theories that > put Snape in a bad light get argued against...I think its because most > theories seem dead set on making him out to be some sort of bad guy, while > ignoring the postion he's in. It's a black-and-white, all-or- nothing view > point that makes no allowances, although plenty (and often what would be the > same) allowances are given to the 'good guys' of the story. Huh? I will speak for myself only of course , but I take exception to the fact that I view Snape in the black -and -white, all or nothing light only. If I did that, he would have been my most hated character in the series, as of today, believe it or not, after Harry (who is my absolute favourite character, no question about it) and Sirius, Snape is number three on my list of most liked characters in the "Potterverse" it is just that I think that in his interactions with Harry and Neville he is wrong at least 90% of the time (even he has some justifiable reasons) and I reserve the right to bash him for it when I seefit. :o) But I acknowledge him being a VERY multidimensional character. > Thus far, the theories presented against him are that he hates/wants to > kill/mistakes-him-for-dear-old-dad, Harry, that he's a vamp, that he'll > betray the good guys in the end, that his temper in dealing with Harry and > co makes him abusive, etc. Yes, and many of those theories could be supported by at leaso some canonical evidence And the thing is, is that he's a *most > convienient* (and admittedly bad-tempered) target. If he told Harry the > things he has told him in a friendly, non-aggressive way, no one would > object. Could you give some examples which things that Snape said would not be objectionable, if they were said with the better choice of words, because I am afraid in my view they still would be objectionable. If he were as 'fun' to be around as Sirius was, people would love > him, and be rooting for him in Snape's Worst Memory when James and Sirius > went after him. Nope, absolutely not. As I mentioned to someone off list, I love Sirius dearly, but I was rooting for Snape in the Pensieve scene. If it wasn't pointed out that he was pale, greasy haired, > and snaggled tooth at least once every book, folks would likely consider him > 'handsome' with his black hair and eyes, and that would distance him a bit > from the 'evil' stereotype, because they would relate better to him on a > personal level (Because, admit it, most folks are highly influenced by > looks--even if those 'looks' are merely talked about on the printed page. If > he LOOKS that bad...there must be a reason for it...likely a 'bad' one). But > because he's an ill-tempered, admittedly no-so-good-looking, pissy old > codger, folks are determined to put him in the bad guy role, whether it's as > DE, double agent, or abuser of children. Basically, folks don't like his > style, so he MUST be bad. You are making an assumption, which I take an exception too again. :o) None of the adult male characters in the "Potterverse" are my type, If I were to judge by the looks only. I usually don't care about the dark - haired men at all, unless I like their personality. :o) Snape looks do not influence my view of him. Actually, I am a huge Slash fan and Snape and Sirius my very favourite pairing. The only reason why I like Sirius a little more is despite his many personality flaws, he was shown as capable of love and I submit that it is a valid reason to like or dislike the characters judging by their attitude to the main character. If by the end of the books we'll learn that Snape was protecting Harry all the time and liking him along th way, i'll change my mind. But his looks have NOTHING to do with anything for me at least. And adding vampirism to his list of 'sins' only > seems 'right' in that type of thought process. Why him being a vampire should be a "sin"? I don't mind him being a vampire for two reasons. First was what Amanda mentioned - it will give additional proof to the fact that Sirius was only trying to scare, not to kill him during the Prank. Second - it will help me to stomach his abusive methods of teaching easier, because if he is a vampire he may have a different system of values indeed and he may indeed not to pay much attention to such 'minor" htings as individual feelings. ;o) > Admittedly, when Snape first came on the scene, I had no more love for him > than the average Harry fan. In fact, I thought he was a right royal bastard. > He IS mean, snarky, and not pleasant. But, as Rowling is revealing through > the books, he has reason, and good ones, for why he is the way he is. The > audience may not relate very well, because they have never been the adult > survivor of an abusive household (one that has likely never had the benefit > of a qualified councillor), have never had to dig themselves out of a wholly > wrong situation they'd gotten themselves into (Like joining a murderous > cult, which you could easily relate the DE to), have never had to be a spy > for thier country, and against former friends and allies no less, have never > been mercilessly bullied by the 'good guys' at school, and have never been > talked down to and ignored for most of thier life (Even Dumbly tends to cut > Snape off when he gets started). It's easy to discount someone when you > haven't had those experiences...just as easy as assigning them a 'factual' > trait that is based more on what people think they see, as opposed to what > is there. Snape's situation requires both thought and the ability to > re-evaluate him every time a new piece of information about him is > presented. He is not a black-and-white character, and black-and- white > thinking won't be accurate. Like real life, Snape is not easily defined, and > shouldn't be. And that includes assigning him an 'obvious' trait like > vampirism. You don't know which of those experiences I had been through, right? secondly even if we were to assume, which is not true, that I had not been through any of them, it does not make me less sophisticated reader than you are. I just choose to interpret Snape's actions differently. Alla From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 19:39:39 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:39:39 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn wrote: (snip) There is NO WAY that Dumbledore would be so reckless as to hire a Vampire as a teacher. Werewolves are only part time monsters (full moons), but a vampire is a monster 24/7. Now me (Nadine) : When I read this, I automatically thought of a line in OotP (page 377 - canadian edition) when Hagrid, telling his tale, says that ?(he) had a sligh' disagreement with a vampire in a pub in Minsk?. Hmm. If one can encounter a vampire in a pub, why not have one teaching in a school... In the same message, Jazmyn quoted Jakedjensen who wrote: maybe LV experimented on his DEs and Snape was turned into a vampire in the process...and for this Snape came to hate LV). It would also explain why DD trusts Snape. Snape will not go back to LV because LV views him as not-pure (or something along these lines). Now me (Nadine) again : For some reason, I like this theory. After all, Voldemort's goal in life is to be immortal. Maybe he has experienced vampirism and failed, but Snape was left with the inconviniences and/or advantages (Are there any ? I don't know!) of being a vampire... Or maybe Snape has been a vampire all along and Voldemort used him for experimentations on immortality. (snip) I also agree with Berit, who, in another post, wrote : ?even though I lean towards the view that Snape is not a vampire/half vampire. I just can't rule it out completely.? :-) Same for me. Nadine From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 20:00:53 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:00:53 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "as_ziggy" wrote: > Hello to all at HP for Grownups, > bboy_mn: Welcome, welcome, welcome; always nice to have new blood, and new ideas and opinions. Many newcomers are worried that they might bring up a subject that has all ready been covered. Not to worry, not to worry. Everything has already been discussed, (well, almost everything), but we've never let that stop us from discussing them again. Frequently, it's the old often discussed subjects that spawn the longest threads. For example, the 'Snape is a Vampire' idea has been re-awakened, and despite having been discussed many times before, the thread has been running for days with many posts per day on the subject. So, really, we would love to hear anything you have to say on any subject even if you disagree with the common beliefs, actually *especially* if you disagree. Conversation where everyone is in agreement can be so boring; nothing like contradicting ideas to get the adrenaline flowing. > Anna: > ...edited... > > I read a few fanfics in which Snape not only had spied for > Dumbledore but is still spying (up until Voldemort's defeat or other > circumstances where Snape's secret has to be exposed). I began to > wonder at the plausibility of it because I think there are a few > clues that Voldemort might have picked up on that Snape was loyal to > Dumbledore and not himself. > > One clue occurs in the Philosopher's Stone. Wouldn't Voldemort have > suspected that Snape may have been loyal to the other side when > Snape was constantly going out of his way to stop Quirrel from > getting the stone? > bboy_mn: The only problem here is that Quirrel and Voldemort chose not to reveal Voldemort's presents or his plan. Snape had no way of knowing that he was acting against Voldemort. As far as Snape knew, all he was doing was acting against some sneaky, sniveling, greedy, trecherous Defense Against Dark Arts teacher. Voldemort certainly can't expect Snape to act based on information he doesn't have. I can see why Voldemort didn't reveal himself. He was weak and helpless, and in no position to exert power over anyone. Like many other Death Eaters, Voldemort controlled Quirrel by appealing to his greed and desire for power. Certainly, Voldemort knows Snape well enough to know that he is very strong. intelligent, and not easily manipulated. So he would never have approached Snape until Voldemort was sure of his own power and abilities once again. > Anna continues: > Another clue would be that Snape did not attend the Death Eater > meeting in GoF when Voldemort returned and broke his followers out > of Azkaban. Missing such an important meeting, I imagine, would be > a huge offence and something that Voldemort noticed and should > probably be suspicious about. > bboy_mn: Well, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have a /theory/ on this subject. First, in the graveyard scene, in my opinion, Voldemort expresses an element of doubt about Snape when he used the word 'believe' as in '...we have six missing Death Eaters. ...One, who I *believe* has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...'. If he had said '...one who has left me forever...' that would seem absolute, but when he says 'who I /believe/ has left me forever..' in my mind the implies and element of uncertainty, like saying '...one who I think might have left me forever...'. So at this stage, I don't think Voldemort really knows what to make of Snape. Now to my theory, what if, way back 14 years ago, Voldemort sent Snape to Dumbledore with some important information Snape could use to get into Dumbledore's good graces? That way Snape could claim to have seen the light and offer to spy for Dumbledore against Voldemort, but, in Voldemort's mind, Snape would really only pretend to be on the good side, and would secretly really be spying for Voldemort against Dumbledore; a double secret agent. Now some event occurred, many speculate that Snape had a thing for Lily and when it became apparent that Voldemort not only had the inclination to kill the Potters, but also, thanks to Wormtail, he now had the opportunity to kill them. So Snape turns against Voldemort, and informs Dumbledore that there is an immediate risk to James, Lily, and Harry. Now Snape is a triple agent; he is pretending to spy for Dumbledore while he pretends to spy for Voldemort while he has really joined the good side and is actually spying for Dumbledore although Voldemort still thinks Snape is only pretending. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Can I prove this? Nope! But that's my story and I'm sticking to it. This explains how Snape could spend so many years with Dumbledore and still be taken back by Voldemort. Because Voldemort was actually the one who sent Snape to work as a spy for Dumbledore. This also allows some degree of betrayal of each side. In order to remain an effective double (triple?) agent status, at some point, you have to betray each side in order to stay on the good side of the other. Both sides therefore acknowledge and accept that Snape will have to do his best to appear to be working against each and for the other. This theory explains how it would be possible for Snape to approach Voldemort. Although, most of us believe that Snape originally send Malfoy to speak on his behalf, and assure Voldemort that Snape was only playing the role of the good spy in staying close to Dumbledore. Malfoy could certainly vouche for the fact that Snape has little love for muggles, the Ministry, Dumbledore, or Harry, and do so in all honesty which would prevent Voldemort from catching either Snape or Malfoy in a lie. Once Snape convinced Voldemort that he really hadn't joined the good side, that all he was doing was continuing his role as a spy, he would be accepted back into the DE's. Don't get me wrong, Voldemort didn't throw a Tea and Cake party to welcome Snape back. I suspect that Snape endure many Cruciatus Pain Curses as a reminder from Voldemort that the cost of true betrayal is extremely, painfully, and ultimately deadly high. Really, I can't imagine any other combination of events that would allow Snape to continue working for both sides. > Anna continues: > In any case any suspicion on Voldemort's part should have made it > impossible for Snape to continue to spy for the Order. I think the > spying would have ended with Voldemort's first fall. If Snape did > any spying after that it would probably only be on the Death Eaters > who didn't get tossed in Azkaban and who still believed he was one > of them. > > So now I'm wondering what you all think about Snape's spying career. > Speak out =) > > Anna bboy_mn: We know Snape has maintained a friendship with Lucius Malfoy over all the year between Voldemort's downfall and the present. We also know that Lucius hasn't abandon the 'dark' ways even though he maintains a respectable public front. I think Snape partly maintained this friendship because he does share some common beliefs with Malfoy and the pure-bloods, but also because Malfoy was probably one of the most intelligent DE's, and would certainly be the one that Voldemort would contact first upon his return, and Malfoy would be the one that Voldemort trusted and relied on upon his return. Malfoy is certainly obedient, but he is not the brainless sniveling bootlicker that the other DE's are. Voldemort can trust Malfoy to act with some degree of intelligence and independant thought. Although, since the slightest failure results in torture, even the most intelligent DE follows Voldemort's orders to the letter, that way, it's always the plan that failed and not the DE's themselves. I'm sure they still get tortured though which really doesn't help Voldemort cause at all. That's why all tyrants are doomed to failure. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sun Jan 4 19:10:44 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:10:44 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88077 Jazmyn : > 1. Snape has not been witnessed drinking blood. > 2. Snape has not been witnessed sleeping in a coffin, box of dirt or > anything like that. > 3. Snape has not been witnessed during into a bat (or any other animals). > 4. Snape has not been witnessed at any time with fangs. > 5. Snape does not possess super human strength or he would have faired > better against being bounced off a wall and knocked out by a few kids > with wands. Julia: Yeah, you're right in that points but... If there were canons for Snape drinking blood etc. , we wouldnt have been considering this topic. And btw this are obvious signs of being a vampire, and JKR just isn't obvious at any point, she likes mysteries. > 6. Snape refereed a Quidditch game outside during the day and far as I > know, Sunblock won't stop the sun from destroying a vampire as its not > just UV rays that effect them. > 7. Snape teaches classes during the daytime when all good little > blood-suckers are asleep. He could be other type. There're vampires who don't die when they see the sun. Or he could be half-vampire (I'm supporter of this theory). > 8. Vampires are not allowed to have wands as they are not 'humans' > anymore by definition as they cannot overcome their bloodthirsty natures > (despite what 'Buffy' fans think), unlike a Werewolf who can just lock > themselves up on a full moon. But if he is a half-vampire he can have a wand (like Lupin). We cannot consider which Vampires or Werewolves are more dangerous because they both are (though in different ways...) > 9. Snape bleeds. Undead don't bleed like humans. Consider the possibility Snape is half-vampire > 10. There is no canon to suggest anyone can be a half-vampire. Its like > being pregnant, you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'. You are either a > vampire or not a vampire. You can't say "I only suck blood on every > other Tues." (Too many 'Vampire Hunter D' fans thinking Snape is like > 'D'. Note that even D can't control his base nature all the time and > 'vamps out' when under a lot of stress or too close to a tasty neck. And > I don't consider Anime a good source of canon for a world whose magical > creatures so far have been based more on old legends, not new movies.) I dont understand why you compare being a vampire to being pregnant... I dont have my sources in anime and movies. I read a few about Vampires. But remember that JKR creates her own world based on her imagination so there are some creatures which dont exists in real world (legends, myths) > 11. Wearing black no more makes a person a vampire then wearing green > makes a person a leprechaun. > 12. Living or working in a dungeon does not a vampire make. It might > make a grumpy, ill-tempered person who lacks a good tan though. > 13. If everyone with black eyes was a vampire, then Hagrid would be one > too. Black eyes exist in real life, though it is linked with color > blindness. These all things dont make you a vampire but I cant say that they cant be some clues. Julia who thinks that Snape is more likely to be half-vampire :D From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 20:48:51 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:48:51 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88078 Jazmyn wrote: There is NO WAY that Dumbledore would be so reckless as to hire a Vampire as a teacher. Werewolves are only part time monsters (full moons), but a vampire is a monster 24/7. Vampires must sleep in their native soil during the DAY, while Snape is teaching classes.. and Snape is also up late at night, catching students out of bed, so he likely has insomnia, which would make sense for someone who is a spy. Stress does that. Vampires are undead who feed on the blood of humans.. and noone is going to trust them in a job with children. vmonte responds: Maybe Snape is not a Vampire but an animagus. His animal form could take the shape of a bat. I've always been curious about Animagi. How exactly did all of James Potter's friends learned how to transform into animals? Do you have a choice of animal or does the spell or potion choose it for you? Could Snape have learned how to do this around the same time as James? Or better yet, could the Potter gang have stolen the information from Snape? vmonte out. From DMCourt11 at cs.com Sun Jan 4 22:30:28 2004 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:30:28 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn wrote: (Snipping most of the post to get to the non-vampire list) > 1. Snape has not been witnessed drinking blood. > 2. Snape has not been witnessed sleeping in a coffin, box of dirt > or anything like that. > 3. Snape has not been witnessed during into a bat (or any other animals). > 4. Snape has not been witnessed at any time with fangs. > 5. Snape does not possess super human strength or he would have faired > better against being bounced off a wall and knocked out by a few kids > with wands. > 6. Snape refereed a Quidditch game outside during the day and far as I > know, Sunblock won't stop the sun from destroying a vampire as its not > just UV rays that effect them. > 7. Snape teaches classes during the daytime when all good little > blood-suckers are asleep. > 8. Vampires are not allowed to have wands as they are not 'humans' > anymore by definition as they cannot overcome their bloodthirsty natures > (despite what 'Buffy' fans think), unlike a Werewolf who can just lock > themselves up on a full moon. > 9. Snape bleeds. Undead don't bleed like humans. > 10. There is no canon to suggest anyone can be a half-vampire. < 11. Wearing black no more makes a person a vampire then wearing green > makes a person a leprechaun. > 12. Living or working in a dungeon does not a vampire make. It might > make a grumpy, ill-tempered person who lacks a good tan though. > 13. If everyone with black eyes was a vampire, then Hagrid would be one > too. Black eyes exist in real life, though it is linked with color > blindness. > Jazmyn Donna: Just wanted to add to that the in the Lexicon it states: Vampires are studied in DADA but *are not considered wizards* (emphasis mine). In GOF(US paperback p.147) Percy is angry with Rita Skeeter for stating that the ministry should be stamping out vampires "As if it wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans--" That is their classification, which the Lexicon itself has wrong, as it has them under Creatures (they and ghosts should have a seperate undead and 'dead but still here' classification of their own). They are not in "Fantastic Beasts," but werewolves who are wizards and CAN do magic when not transformed, are. 14. We have seen Snape performing magic (dueling club in COS for one example). Not that vampires don't have supernatural powers, but it is not considered wizardry, it is part of their essense. A vampire transforms into a bat, but is not an animagus. They don't need wands. Ghosts who were wizards can no longer do magic, I don't think it's just because they can't hold a wand. Dumbledore has done wandless magic, even if it's because he's so powerful, you'd think a ghost who's essense has hung around for a few hundred years would develop the strength of will to not need a wand. Before this strays too far off the point, I just want to finish with half vampires. I think the jury is still out on that one. Vampires have been mentioned several times, but half vampires so far don't exist in JKR's world. Donna From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 22:30:36 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:30:36 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88080 This is an old subject; discussed and I thought resolved, but I was re-reading Goblet of Fire again, and couldn't help noticing an inconsistency in the Little Hangleton/Riddle introduction narrative. I am aware from past discussion that in the paragraphs I am about to quote, the US edition says 'murder', whereas the UK edition says 'curse'. They could mean one and the same but not necessarily. In the US edition Voldemort and Peter/Worntail are at the old Riddle mansion discussing their plan while the old caretaker Frank Bryce listens outside the door. Peter suggests that they could use the blood of any wizard or witch to complete the spell, but Voldemort insists on Harry's blood. Volemort says, '...one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear'. What is not clear is who's death are they talking about. This is where I need the help of someone who has a UK edition of GoF. Would a person who has the UK edition quote me the same paragraphs that I will quote below, so that I can see the difference between the two and see if that clears up the true meaning of this section of the book? --- Quote Goblet of Fire - Am Ed - HB - pg 10 --- "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. "All through or journey I have gone over the plan in my head -- My lord, Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if *I* (my emphasis) murder --" "If?" whispered the second voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died. You will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present conditions... Come, Wormtail, one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my /faithful/ servant will have rejoined us--" --skipping a section-- -- continuing - GoF -Am Ed HB - pg 12 -- "One more murder ...my faithful servant at Hogwarts ...Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more argument. Be quiet... I think I hear Nagini..." --- End Quote --- I need a quote of the UK version of these paragraphs, please. As I said, I know from past discussions that they do not read the same. I suspect that perhaps the UK edition makes more sense than the USA edition on this one particular point. For the discussion, here are what I think are important factors. Wormtail's statement implies that is is he, Peter, who will do the killing. Note my emphasis at the end of Wormtail/Peter's speech in the first paragraph. It appears that the murder/curse will occur before the beginning of the school year. It appears that the murder/curse will occur before they get Barty Crouch Jr to help them. Note the end of the second paragraph in which Voldemort is speaking, he says that by the time the murder/curse has occurred his faithful servant assumed to be Crouch Jr. will join them. That implies after the event to me. Who could be murdered/cursed that would go unnoticed by the Ministry; "...Ministry need never know that anyone else has died? You will do it quietly and without fuss...". Also in the last paragraph quoted, Voldemort seems to be reciting a list of events - Step 1.) One more murder/curse... Step 2.) My faithful servant at Hogwarts... Step 3.) Harry Potter is as good as mine... >From the US quoted text, I can not determine who will be murdered, and why Voldemort thinks no one will notice. The usual suspects- -Bertha Jorkins (already dead) -Frank Bryce (soon to be dead and certainly he was never part of the plan. That was just a chance occurrence, although rather stupid on Voldemort's part.) -Barty Crouch Jr (he's working for Voldemort and is require to complete the plan, certainly he will live) -Barty Crouch Sr (but they didn't kill him, they kept him alive but at home where he sent letters with business instructions to his assistant Percy) -the Real Mad-Eye Moody (well, they didn't kill him either. Crouch Jr/Fake!Moody needed him alive.) -Dumbledore (Didn't see any early-on plot to kill or curse him) -Harry Potter (well, not Harry because his death comes at the end of the plan, not the beginning, and his death couldn't be a quiet unnoticed death) Since no one seems to fit the bill for death, I suspect that reading the UK edition will give me some insight into what JKR intended to say here. Any help with the UK edition? Thanks. bboy_mn From jakejensen at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 22:49:24 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:49:24 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <3FF848A5.7070800@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn wrote: I do not think it would be amazing. But then, I am not a Goth and have no interest in seeing my favorite character as a vampire. JakedJensen responds: Please do not stereotype everyone who thinks Snape might be a vampire or half-vampire. I am not a Goth (not that I have any problem with someone who is). Jakedjensen wrote: 2. Irony. Hitler promoted a physical image he did not live up to. LV is a parody of this (i.e., he is not a pure-blood). Snape might be the same way (the source of his anger is his own feeling of difference). jazmyn wrote: The problem with that idea, is that vampires are as pureblood as they were before they became vampires. Being as vampires are HUMANS who were made into vampires by other vampires. Being also as vampires are undead, their purity of blood doesn't matter as they cannot breed anyways. Jakedjensen responds: First, I am not arguing that Snape is not a pure-blood. I am arguing that his own hatred of LV or Lupin might stem from feelings of insecurity about himself. Second, vampire are second class citizens in JKRs world. Hence, being a vampire would lead to disrespect among the purebloods in the same way they (my proxy for pure-blood type thought is the Malfoys) hate Hagrid and were angry that Lupin (a werewolf) was allowed to teach at Hogwarts. Since vampires are lumped into this group (werewolves, giants, etc.) in the books, Snape would most likely suffer the same ridicule. jazmyn wrote: There is NO WAY that Dumbledore would be so reckless as to hire a Vampire as a teacher. Werewolves are only part time monsters (full moons), but a vampire is a monster 24/7. Jakedjensen responds: Hmmm...DD hires a half-giant, a werewolf, a cent., but in your opinion there is NO WAY he would think of hiring a vampire? I think DD has shown himself to be the sort of person who judges all living creatures on their own merits and not just on public perception. Remember, DD makes a move to befriend the giants (who are monsters 24/7) in OoTP. In general, I think a lot of your perceptions of vampires and what the HAVE to be like (sleep in coffin, drink blood) have not been disproved in canon. Those that have (Snape in the sunlight) can easily be explained if Snape drinks a potion similiar to the one he made for Lupin in PoA. Afterall, that potion allowed Lupin to go in the moonlight which would be the same thing. Also, you are stereotyping all vampires as being bloodthirsty monsters. The same could be said of werewolves. Or giants. And as we have seen, those stereotypes are not always correct. Jake From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 23:03:40 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:03:40 -0000 Subject: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bookraptor11" wrote: > > Donna: > Just wanted to add to that the in the Lexicon it states: Vampires > are studied in DADA but *are not considered wizards* (emphasis > mine). > > In GOF(US paperback p.147) Percy is angry with Rita Skeeter for > stating that the ministry should be stamping out vampires "As if it > wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for > the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans--" > > That is their classification, which the Lexicon itself has wrong, as > it has them under Creatures > bboy_mn: There is a difference between what you are functionally, and how you are classified. Centaurs, for example. are humanoid and with an intelligence equal to or superior to humans. However, Centaur declined to allow themselves to be classified as 'beings' because they did not wnat to be lumped into a catagory that also included creatures that they considered lesser beings (like pixies or whatever... searched high and low for my magical creatures book, so I could quote it, but I can't find it). > Donna continues: > > 14. We have seen Snape performing magic (dueling club in COS for one > example). > > Not that vampires don't have supernatural powers, but it is not > considered wizardry, it is part of their essense. > bboy_mn: Wish I could find my magical creatures book so I could quote, but I guess I'll just have to make due. I don't think the book says that a vampire can't be a wizard; again it's not a matter of completely defining something, so much as a matter of classifing it. Wizards who become vampires become a special case, they are not beings as they do have their own unique problems and powers, and yet they have not de-evolved so far that they have become beasts, so they, like ghosts, are placed in a special catagory. Others are right to point out that the manifestation of werewolfism comes and goes with the waxing and waning of the moon. Where as a vampire remains fully and completely a vampire once they become one; vampire 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Also, if we draw on common folklore, Vampires live very human lives, and to some extent maintain very human characteristics. Keep in mind that there are many, sometimes contradictory, variations of the vampire legend. Like the allergic to the sun thing, that's not in all vampire legends. My point is that a Vampire could be a wizard, but once they become a vampire, they are re-classified into a special vampire catagory. Part of the confusion in the discussion revolves around how one becomes a vampire. Is one born a vampire by random chance, is one born a vampire as the son or daughter of a vampire, or does one become a vampire by being bitten but not killed by a another vampire? Being infected by a bite in a fashion similar to a werewolf, would mean that an educated practicing wizard could suddenly become a vampire. > Donna continues: > > Before this strays too far off the point, I just want to finish with > half vampires. I think the jury is still out on that one. Vampires > have been mentioned several times, but half vampires so far don't > exist in JKR's world. > > Donna bboy_mn: In myth and movies, vampires are portrayed as lustful creatures, they lust for both blood and flesh (if you know what I mean; nudge, nudge, wink, wink). They are very sexual creatures, so I have no problem seeing an infected vampire having sex with a muggle woman or witch. And as we know, sex frequently leads to babies. The idea of a half vampire is therefore not that far fetched, if we take that to mean the son or daughter of the mating of a vampire and non-vampire. Exactly, how vampirism would manifest itself under these conditions is unclear and ripe for speculation, but the 'mixed' offspring of a vampire is theoretically possible. Just a thought from someone who never ever thought he would comment in a 'Snape is a Vampire' thread. bboy_mn From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 5 00:50:05 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:50:05 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88083 bboy_mn wrote: This is where I need the help of someone who has a UK edition of GoF. Would a person who has the UK edition quote me the same paragraphs that I will quote below, so that I can see the difference between the two and see if that clears up the true meaning of this section of the book? > > --- Quote Goblet of Fire - Am Ed - HB - pg 10 --- > "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. "All > through or journey I have gone over the plan in my head -- My lord, > Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if > we proceed, if *I* (my emphasis) murder --" > > "If?" whispered the second voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, > Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died. You > will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it > myself, but in my present conditions... Come, Wormtail, one more death > and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it > alone. By that time, my /faithful/ servant will have rejoined us--" > > --skipping a section-- > > -- continuing - GoF -Am Ed HB - pg 12 -- > "One more murder ...my faithful servant at Hogwarts ...Harry Potter is > as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more > argument. Be quiet... I think I hear Nagini..." Berit replies: Why on earth has the American Edition been "translated" that way? It sure makes no sense at all :-) Here's what Rowling wrote (UK Ed): Quote: [Wormtail speaking:] "'...Bertha Jorkins disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I curse...' [Voldie answers] '...If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared...come Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have joined us-'" [and then Voldie again, p. 16:]"'One more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided.'" Makes sense, doesn't it? Sounds like Voldemort is talking about cursing the new DADA teacher at Hogwarts, Mad Eye Moody, to get him out of the way so he can smuggle in Crouch jr, his faithful servant instead... And we know this is what happened. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 5 01:14:01 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:14:01 -0000 Subject: Animagi (was: WHY a vampire? was No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88084 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Maybe Snape is not a Vampire but an animagus. His animal form could > take the shape of a bat. > > I've always been curious about Animagi. How exactly did all of > James Potter's friends learned how to transform into animals? Not all James's friends (I imagine half the students would call themselves his friends), just James, Sirius, and Peter. Canon says James and Sirius were extremely clever students and they helped Peter. > Do you have a choice of animal or does the spell or potion choose > it for you? JKR has confirmed in interviews that the Animagus doesn't get to choose his/her animal form, but instead the animal form is a reflection of his/her personality. http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2 000_Live_Chat_America_Online.htm Q: Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? JKR: Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm Q: If you were Animagus, what kind of animal would you be? A: I'd like to be an otter -- that's my favourite animal. It would be depressing if I turned out to be a slug or something. I want to know, what happens if a person who has become an Animagus goes over the whole training again, from scratch, will heesh get another animal form? Can a person who is a werewolf become an Animagus? with an animal form other than wolf? Can a werewolf who is an Animagus with an animal form other than wolf avoid turning into a wolf monster at Full Moon by turning into hiser animal before the moment? I also would like to know the relationship between Animagus form and Patronus form. JKR said that she would like to be an Otter if she were an Animagus, and she gave her avatar character (Hermione) an Otter for Patronus. Harry's Patronus is a stag, and some people on list think that he would be a stag Animagus as well. Alas, JKR isn't going to tell us: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/arti cles/1999/1099-pressclubtransc.html SB: We're going to take a few more questions, and um, the next one is will Harry ever turn into a shape-changer like his father? JKR: Animagus. No, Harry's not in training to be an animagus, and if you've read book three, you won't know -- um, that's a wizard that's very, very difficult to do. They learn to turn themselves into animals. No, Harry is not, Harry is going to be concentrated elsewhere, he's not going to have time to do that. He's got quite a full agenda coming up, poor boy. > Could Snape have learned how to do this around the same time as > James? Or better yet, could the Potter gang have stolen the > information from Snape? I suspect that it's more of a skill than of an information that can be stolen. Like how to walk a tightrope. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 5 01:14:32 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:14:32 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <005501c3d2ed$d95f7620$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Silverthorne Dragon" wrote: > wrote: > Thus far, the theories presented against him are that he hates/wants to kill/mistakes-him-for-dear-old-dad, Harry, that he's a vamp, that he'llbetray the good guys in the end, that his temper in dealing with Harry andco makes him abusive, etc. And the thing is, is that he's a *most convienient* (and admittedly bad-tempered) target. < My Snape's a vampire theory isn't against Snape at all, if by that you mean an argument that Snape is ultimately against the cause of good. It may be that being a vampire, or part vampire, he has no innate fellow-feeling towards humans, or human children. He may have no natural desire to help others and does not get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when he does so. So every good action he does is by an act of will, which by some estimations would make him more moral than a person who is kindly and helpful and never feels any inclination to be otherwise. > > Although it *would* help to illustrate that acceptance under false pretenses has a price, I think Rowling is already covering that with Hagrid and Madam Maxine (Who, although is obviously half-giant, does not acknowledge that fact, or allow it to be acknowledged in public), among others. < Hagrid and Maxime are, as you say, obviously half-giant. They can't fool anyone but themselves, and Rowling wants us to see that. But what if someone could carry off such a charade successfully, fully accepted by someone like Fudge, who was quite prepared to award an Order of Merlin to Severus? What price would there be for that? Is there another character in that situation? Pippin From artcase at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 02:00:20 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:00:20 -0000 Subject: "brew fortune, bottle fame, put a stopper in death" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88086 This was uttered by Snape in the very first book... the last part is very much a good reason LV would want Snape around. Art From tiamik72 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 02:22:03 2004 From: tiamik72 at aol.com (katie_wible) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:22:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar a snake? (OOP spoilers) In-Reply-To: <20030628023255.26451.qmail@web13113.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Odile Falaise wrote: > I, Odile, wondered: > > > > >>>But what I would like to know is: *where* is the > scar situated on his forehead?? I get so annoyed > watching TCTMNBN, where they have it off to the side.? > Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be where his > "third eye" is?? No doubt this has been hashed, > rehashed and cornbeef hashed a million times on this > list...<<< > > > then Pat replied: > > >>>Actually, I haven't seen it discussed on the list, > at least not for the last six months or so!? My > impression of "where the scar goes" is that JKR TOLD > the movie people where to put it.? Can anyone dig up > the interview??<<< > > > > And me again (that would be Odile): > > A-ha! I found... something: > > here's the link: > > http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0%2C1259%2C---7740%2C00.html > > here is the excerpt: > > Fans Note 'Harry Potter' Scar is Askew > Thu, Jul 19, 2001 > > << the Sorcerer's Stone," however, the scar appears above > the right eye of actor Daniel Radcliffe, who portrays > Potter. > > << mistake. Filmmakers knew full well where the book's > illustrators had placed the scar - but J.K. Rowling, > the British author of the Potter books never > pinpointed the scar's exact location in the narrative. > In fact, a Warner Brothers source quoted by > Entertainment Weekly said that Rowling only told > filmmakers she wanted the scar to be "razor sharp" and > "just off center." Apparently, she never really > specified where the scar had to be. > > << Mary GrandPr? said the placement was left up to her. > "I guess everybody has their own interpretation," she > said.>>> > > Back to things list, Keith wrote: > > >>>Maybe as the time of the prophecy gets closer, it > will become a sharper and more obvious snake. It would > make perfect sense that it isn't actually a lightning > bolt. That would be extremely sneaky of JKR: > describing it as a bolt all these years, only as a way > of tricking people's brain to see it a certain way. > <<< > > Odile again (c'est moi): > > I totally see your point, and it would be pretty kewl > if it was indeed a snake - I mean, the prophecy *did* > state that "the Dark Lord would mark him as his > equal," and Voldy sure does like those snakes! > > But I still hold to my original opinion: that the scar > is indeed a lightening bolt, caused by a clash of the > elements fire and water, as in a raging storm, when > Voldy tried to AK Harry. > > Lightening is fire at its most destructive (outside of > a nuclear bomb, probably!) - certainly equal to > Voldemort at his most destructive. > > Or not. ^_^ now me(Katie) I also agree that it is a lightening bolt and not a snake shaped scar. Your opinion may be correct, but i also believe it is a lightening bolt for another reason. When you were quoting from the article above, JKR said that she wanted the scar to be "razor sharp" and > "just off center." Snakes would not be razor sharp or jagged. They are more curvy, arent they? Unless it starts to change shape over the next two books, which I doubt. Plus, on the American cover, the "P" in Potter is definately shaped like lightning. -Katie- From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 5 02:53:13 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:53:13 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape and Narcissa's growing role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88088 > Carol wrote: > Anyone else have an idea how Lucius might escape and still have some > influence in the WW? Mandy here: As for a Lucius' imprisonment, I think he will have an official pardon, signed by Fudge himself, in his slippery hands before the summer is over. Lucius has so many contacts at the ministry. So many favors to call in. So much influence over so many people. I'm thinking Lucius' safe must be full of evidence of money debts, illicit photographs, evidence of extra marital affairs, far too many things I can't mention because the under 17's might be reading.....blackmail galore! I'd loose faith in Mr. Malfoy if he can't wrangle his way out of an inconvenient sentence in Azkaban Prison. > Yolanda wrote: > It wasn't Lucius decision to send Draco to Hogwarts > in the first place. Lucius wanted to send Draco to > Drumstrang, but his mother didn't want him going to > school so far away. Mandy again: My thoughts exactly. Narcissa was responsible for Draco attending Hogwarts which makes me question where her true loyalties lie. I wonder, if she really is a true Dark witch like her husband and sister, she would have agreed to send her son to a school that teaches the Dark Arts like Durmstrang, where Lucius wanted Draco to go. But no, she sends her son to a school who's under the control of DD, the hated muggle loving fool of all Dark witches and wizards. She tells her son she wanted him near her, but that's a weak excuse for a family who's wealth can easily afford to send their son around the world a few times if they choose. Flying back and forth to Durmstrang would be nothing to the Malfoy's. It's not as if Narcissa visits her son in school or Hogsmead anyway. I would like to see more of this mysterious blonde woman. Personally, as I've mentioned too many times before ;-), I would like to see her as a spy for the Order, keeping her son close to Dumbledore for his and her protection. Mandy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 03:13:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:13:32 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88089 Carol wrote: > > > Whose evidence? I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I'm about to give > up, not on my belief that Snape is not a vampire but on > convincing people who are determined to believe that he is. < > Pippin responded: > I believe Amanda was referring to my post 35299, which gathers > the vampire evidence pre-OOP. The significance of the frosty > temperature of Snape's office escaped my notice and I thank > Jake for this useful addition to Snapelore. > > You might want to look at the Mysteries FAQ > http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/mysteries.html > under Severus Snape for past discussion of this. > > I don't think Rowling's point in making Snape a vampire would > be to have him suddenly succumb to bloodlust, any more than > that was her reason to make Lupin a werewolf. > > I'm not a Snape hater, far from it, nor am I a huge fan of > vampire-fiction. Mostly I see Snape's character as a mirror and > foil of Lupin's. Lupin wants desperately to "pass" as a normal > wizard and his whole life has been colored by his inability to do > this. Vampire!Snape, OTOH, *can* pass, and I think Rowling > means to show us that this too has a cost. In any case, the > desire to be accepted by human society is the most human sort > of motivation I can think of. Carol again: Thanks for the explanation, which I sincerely appreciate. I don't agree with you, but at least I understand you. I don't see Snape as a foil to anyone, however; he's too important a character in his own right, and (like Gollum in LOTR) has a role to play, for good or ill, before the end--meaning that JKR has said we should watch out for him in Book 7 and I think that means he'll fulfill his life debt to James by saving Harry's life in some spectacular way (as he keeps trying to do in every book). If there are any foils involved, they would reflect Snape, not the other way around. Sirius, for example, resembles Snape in more ways than Lupin does, even to details of physical appearance and a tendency to be angry. Since he's the less developed character and appears in fewer books, it makes sense to have him as the foil to snape rather than the other way around. As for Lupin, he's just a decent person and competent teacher who has the misfortune to be a werewolf and is again out of a job. I imagine he'll play a role in Book 6, at least, as a member of the Order, and maybe in that respect he'll serve as a foil to Snape: a teacher and a former teacher, both members of the Order, working in very different ways to help Harry and Dumbledore conquer Voldemort. There's no need for a vampire motif to present them as two men of the same age in a similar situation reacting in opposite ways. I do think that we'll see a vampire at some point, just as we've seen centaurs, house elves, and giants. If we need a vampire, especially a vampire as victim of discrimination, why not make it Viktor Krum, viciously "outed" by a teammate or former schoolmate? That would fit nicely with the Hermione-as-champion-of-the-oppressed connection. I can't imagine her championing Snape as a victim, or his tolerating her interference. Nope. Snape is sufficiently complicated without adding being a vampire to the mix. And as I'm sure you'll admit, there are alternative explanations for all the "clues" on your list. (Snape doesn't refuse to eat at Hogwarts, for example, only at 12 Grimauld Place. And that may change with Sirius gone--unless, as someone has argued recently, he's trying to keep memories of meals at Order headquarters out of his memory in case of contact with Voldemort.) I just want to know why he joined the Death Eaters and why he quit and what he's up to now. That's plenty, don't you think? Carol From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 03:16:15 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:16:15 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's escape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88090 > justcarol67 at y...> wrote: Since Lucius is so slippery and a breakout of the sort that freed Bellatrix et al. would look very bad, I'm predicting that Lucius will find a way to buy or talk his way out, to get Fudge back into his pocket and/or convince him of his innocence. (If he were a Muggle,he'd threaten to sue Fudge for false imprisonment and defamation of character, but we've yet to seen any Wizard lawyers.) Anyone else have an idea how Lucius might escape and still have some influence in the WW? Or do you all think we've seen the last of Lucius and his mantle, such as it is, will pass to Draco? > Jo replies: I certainly don't think that we've seen the last of Lucius Malfoy but I can't see him regaining anything like his former position of influence at the Ministry or in the non-DE wizarding world. Remember too, that Dumbledore has been reinstated as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. No, I really think that Fudges' glory days are over and he'll be lucky to escape being imprisoned for corruption if the evidence of his ties to Mr. Malfoy ever become public. Sophierom (me) replies: What if we tie the question of Lucius's future to another issue ... Snape's viability as a spy (even double or triple agent)? Some good posts have already suggested that the DEs think Snape is spy for their side, while in actuality, Snape is working for the Order (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86407 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88073 as examples). Both posts have also suggested that Lucius Malfoy is an important link for Snape. Jen R. has argued that Lucius is also a double agent for the order, and has been so ever since the diary catastrophe in CoS (post 86407). bboy_mn proposes a less direct role for Lucius; he believes that Lucius is "one of the most intelligent DE's," and because this intelligence makes Lucius one of LV's top men, Snape uses Lucius to keep in LV's inner circle (post 88073). (If I've misrepresented these posts, I apologize!) In either case, Snape neeeds Lucius to maintain a good relationship with the DEs and LV. Without this relationship, Snape can't be a very good double agent for the Order. So, based on these ideas, perhaps Lucius can wiggle his way out of Azkaban. Perhaps the Order needs Lucius in order to keep Snape in the spying game. So, one possible scenario: Fudge will release Lucius, with the silent blessing of Dumbledore. (Fudge is the pawn of all the power players in the HP world; I believe he was the unwitting pawn of LV via Lucius in OOTP and he will be the knowning, perhaps bitter pawn of Dumbledore in at least the beginning of Book 6.) Draco, as well as Harry and his gang, will believe Lucius "got away with it." Harry may be particularly bitter about this because he came face to face with Lucius in the MoM. But Harry won't realize until later that the Order needs Lucius in some capacity. In proposing these ideas, I don't mean to suggest that Lucius is working for the Order in any real sense; he is still as slimy as ever. Perhaps he won't even know who really allowed him to be released. Another possible scenario: Lucius actually breaks out of Azkaban, for as Draco insinuates at the end of OotP, without the dementors, Azkaban isn't much of a prison for strong enough wizards. In this case, as others have suggested, Lucius will have to go underground. While the Ministry may put some effort into capturing other escaped DEs, Dumbledore will have his Aurors in the Order lay off Lucius because the ORder needs Lucius to be in play in order to maintain Snape's contact with the DEs. In either case, Snape needs to keep in contact with Lucius; otherwise, he won't be much of double agent. I suppose Snape could try to "make friends" with some other DE, or perhaps work straight for LV. But I doubt if LV trusts Snape enough to let him get too close (LV likes having an intermediary between himself and Snape just in case Snape has gone over to the Order). Lucius has been the perfect link thus far; LV has a trusted DE in between himself and Snape, and Snape has an inner-circle contact. If Harry sees Snape having anything to do with Lucius, he is going to be none too pleased with Snape. But he may not understand that it actually serves the Orders' purposes to let Lucius run free for a while. Okay, that's my rambling two cents (or knuts?). Hope everyone had a happy new year. Best, Sophierom From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 03:26:43 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:26:43 -0000 Subject: Oops ... Re: Lucius Malfoy's escape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88091 Sophierom: > What if we tie the question of Lucius's future to another issue ... > Snape's viability as a spy (even double or triple agent)? Some good > posts have already suggested that the DEs think Snape is spy for > their side, while in actuality, Snape is working for the Order (see > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86407 and > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88073 as > examples). Sophierom again: Sorry, I put the wrong link up ... the last link should actually be http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88076 . I apologize for the mistake and double post! best, Sophierom From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 5 03:34:45 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:34:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "brew fortune, bottle fame, put a stopper in death" References: Message-ID: <001501c3d33c$ddf18f80$e25baacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88092 (klaxons go off) L.O.O.N.* on deck! Take cover! The subject line is not accurate to canon. The first two are incorrect or swapped, and the revision of the third is what Snape said in The Celluloid Which Shall Not Be Named, to (in my opinion) clarify what he's saying for the audience. What he says in the book is "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death." [which is, by the bye, a perfect haiku.] ~Amanda, old L.O.O.N. *League Of Obsessive Nitpickers; achieved by acclamation and recognition by a sitting L.O.O.N. Or standing. Whatever. From erikal at magma.ca Mon Jan 5 05:16:54 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:16:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: <014301c3d34b$22f69860$1da31a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 88093 romerskesims wrote: >I think he'll end up with Luna >Lovegood. She's a character that just >sees Harry as Harry and not as "The Boy >Who Lived". The fact that >she seems quite uninterested in his >fame might just be what Harry >needs... While it's possible of course that Harry could end up with Luna, I'd like to point out that Hermione, too, sees Harry as just Harry rather than "The Boy Who Lived", and has since the beginning of the series. Even the Weasleys, who now clearly accept Harry as himself to the point that he is almost one of the family, reacted to him as "The Boy who Lived" in PS: Fred and George are described as: "pointing at Harry's lightning scar." (PS 71) And then: "The two boys gawped at him and Harry felt himself going red." (PS 72) As for Ron, he to reacts to Harry's fame and specifically asks to see his scar: "'And have you really got-- you know...' He pointed to Harry's forehead. Harry pulled back the fringe to show the lightning scar. Ron stared. [...] 'Wow,' said Ron. He sat and stared at Harry for a few moments [...]" (74) To his credit, Ron gets over it quickly enough, but he does point and stare, just as most of the other students do when they first see Harry. Hermione, in contrast, only comments that she's read all about him and then immediately moves on to talking about the Hogwarts houses (79). This is typical of Hermione's behaviour through the whole series. Even Ron who become Harry's best friend is affected. Hermione, though, is never phased by Harry's fame. Just wanted to point out that Luna's not the only one able to see Harry for himself. >(I have NEVER believed in >Harry/Hermione, they're just >friends.) Well yes, they're just friends... at the moment. But it seems to me that that friendship is a very good basis on which to build a relationship in the future ;) Best, Erika (Wolfraven) For friendly shipping discussion join us at The Great Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGreatDebate [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 04:33:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:33:15 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88094 "as_ziggy" wrote: > I read a few fanfics in which Snape not only had spied for Dumbledore > but is still spying (up until Voldemort's defeat or other > circumstances where Snape's secret has to be exposed). I began to > wonder at the plausibility of it because I think there are a few > clues that Voldemort might have picked up on that Snape was loyal to > Dumbledore and not himself. > > One clue occurs in the Philosopher's Stone. Wouldn't Voldemort have > suspected that Snape may have been loyal to the other side when Snape > was constantly going out of his way to stop Quirrel from getting the > stone? I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult to notice from the > back of Quirrel's head. And even if he hadn't always hidden in > Quirrel's turban, Quirrel would have at least had to explain why he > hadn't gotten the stone yet. > > Another clue would be that Snape did not attend the Death Eater > meeting in GoF when Voldemort returned and broke his followers out of > Azkaban. Missing such an important meeting, I imagine, would be a > huge offence and something that Voldemort noticed and should probably > be suspicious about. > > In any case any suspicion on Voldemort's part should have made it > impossible for Snape to continue to spy for the Order. I think the > spying would have ended with Voldemort's first fall. If Snape did > any spying after that it would probably only be on the Death Eaters > who didn't get tossed in Azkaban and who still believed he was one of > them. > > So now I'm wondering what you all think about Snape's spying career. > Speak out =) > > Anna Hi, Anna. I know that Steve has already responded to your post with a rather complex triple agent theory. I have a simpler explanation: Snape's loyalty is to Dumbledore and Voldemort knows it but has (or had) his own reasons for letting him live for awhile. Leaving the turban for a moment, let me skip to your second point. I think that rather than risking death by going to Voldemort directly to explain his absence from the graveyard, Snape went to Lucius Malfoy, his old friend and continuing contact, and explained to him that you can't apparate from Hogwarts and he couldn't leave the Tri-Wizard Tournament without raising Dumbledore's suspicions. Malfoy, who continues to trust Snape because of the reports that Draco gives him of Snape's treatment of his students, passed the information along to Voldemort. I think that Voldemort finds a connection between Malfoy and Snape useful and hopes to learn something about Hogwarts, Harry, and Dumbledore by maintaining the connection even though he knows that Snape is a spy and (in his view) a traitor to the DEs. In my view, Voldemort wouldn't pass on this suspicion to Malfoy because Malfoy has to trust Snape (at least to the degree that Malfoy trusts anyone) for his role as Snape's contact to work. As for the turban incident, whether Snape knew that Quirrell was acting as an agent for Voldemort or not, trying to prevent Quirrell from obtaining the stone was an act of loyalty to Dumbledore which Voldemort would see as an act of enmity toward himself. Combine that incident with Snape's absence from the graveyard and Snape's disloyalty becomes a fact in Voldemort's mind. When he refers to Snape as "one, who I believe has left us forever," he does not mean "I think but I'm not sure." Notice that "I believe" is not set off with quotation marks. It's part of a statement of belief like "I believe that God exists" or "I believe that capital punishment is unjust." Beliefs of that sort have the strength of fact in the believer's mind. "He will be killed, of course," is not a conditional statement (if I'm right and he's guilty, he'll be killed). The guilt and the death are both established as truth in Voldemort's mind. (Fortunately Voldemort is not a prophet and we don't have to take Snape's death as a given!) So, to summarize, I think you're right that Voldemort knows perfectly well which side Snape is on, and it isn't his. I also think that Lucius Malfoy, up until the MoM incident, did *not* know of Snape's defection and thought he was a faithful DE placed by Voldemort at Hogwarts as a spy before Voldemort's fall. Now that Malfoy is in Azkaban he may have other ideas. At any rate, the old Snape/Malfoy relationship will be difficult if not impossible to sustain and Snape's role as spy will be much more difficult and dangerous than it was in previous books. Fortunately, Snape is extremely intelligent and has the advantage of being able to think like a dark wizard (as well as having every spell and potion known to wizardkind at his command), so I think we can count on some surprises from him in Book 6. We can also count on his survival, at least until Book 7, where JKR has promised he'll do something big--possibly a direct encounter with Voldemort in which he repays his life debt to James by saving Harry. Whether Snape himself will survive that encounter, I don't know. Carol From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 06:40:44 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:40:44 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > bboy_mn wrote: > ... person who has the UK edition quote me ..., so that I can see > the difference ... and see if that clears up the true meaning ...? > > > > --- Quote Goblet of Fire - Am Ed - HB - pg 10 --- > > "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. > > "..., if *I* (my emphasis) murder --" > > > > "If?" whispered the second voice. "..., the Ministry need never > > know that anyone else has died. ..., one more death > > and our path to Harry Potter is clear. ..." > > > > --skipping a section-- > > > Berit replies: > > Why on earth has the American Edition been "translated" that way? It > sure makes no sense at all :-) Here's what Rowling wrote (UK Ed): > > Quote: > [Wormtail speaking:] "'..., if I curse...' > > [Voldie answers] '..., the Ministry need never know that anyone else > has disappeared ..., one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry > Potter is clear. ...'" > > [and then Voldie again, p. 16:]"'One more curse ... my faithful > servant at Hogwarts ... Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It > is decided.'" > > Makes sense, doesn't it? Sounds like Voldemort is talking about > cursing the new DADA teacher at Hogwarts, Mad Eye Moody, ... > > Berit bboy_mn: What on earth could the US publishers have been thinking? I can only concluded that they didn't understand at all what they were reading, because the original UK version makes perfect sense. One nitpick, while the 'curse' could be the curse they used to get Moody, it could have also been the curse they used to incapacitate Crouch Sr so the could get Junior, then they could use Barty Jr, to help them get Moody. In my mind, it's about equal for either one, although there is the line '...I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have joined us-...', that seems to imply that the Crouch Sr/Jr situation will aready be taken care of, so perhaps, if that interpretation is correct, then capturing Moody seems to be the only thing left. Hummmm... the more I think about it, the more, I think you might be right. The 'list' at the end appears to be a summary of the plan or more accurately a planned sequence of events; first, the curse and that curse leads to his 'faithful servant' at Hogwarts, and his faith servant at Hogwarts leads to Harry Potter being his; capture Moody, substitute Moody, capture Harry. That is a lot easier sequence of events to conclude using the UK edition, than it is using the USA edition. I'm very glad that they have kept the 'translation' to a minimum in the current book, and hopefully, they will continue with minimum possible changes to future books. It wouldn't bother me at all if they didn't make any changes. Certainly most intelligent people including kids can figure out the meaning from the context. One change that I am aware of in the latest book, is someone tells Harry to 'keep his pecker up'. In the context of the statement, it is obvious that they are offerring Harry encouragement. Pecker in British slang refers to courage, and is an indirect reference to the heart; like saying 'take heart' or 'be strong'. That would have certainly cause of few giggles in grade schools and middle schools, but that wouldn't have distracted people from the real intent of the statement. Thanks for the help. bboy_mn From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 5 07:13:55 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:13:55 +1300 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040105131750.02614950@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88096 There has been a lot of chat on this topic. As far as I stand, I am undecided one way or the other regarding Snape as a vampire. However, I do believe there must be vampire(s) in proximity to Hogsmeade as the sweet shop stocks supplies for vampires. If it was a low seller or none sold at all, the stock wouldn't likely be available. It would still be possible to get if not stocked, but not as standing stock, any small amounts wanted would have to be ordered in for special requests. Now Werewolves. ie Lupin. First, regardless of his condition, he is a very popular character. However, I have this question. I know he transforms only once a month and vampires are 24/7. Lets ask this. If he accidently bit someone in his human form, what would happen, would that person then have the curse or not? Tanya From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Jan 5 08:03:05 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:03:05 EST Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse Message-ID: <121.29b35c88.2d2a7439@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88097 Berit : > > > > Why on earth has the American Edition been "translated" that way? It > > sure makes no sense at all :-) Here's what Rowling wrote (UK Ed): > > bboy_mn: > > What on earth could the US publishers have been thinking? I can only > concluded that they didn't understand at all what they were reading, > because the original UK version makes perfect sense. We discussed this difference and others differences extensively, when was it? Oh, ages ago - it must have been over a year now. In the first four books there are quite a number. Some of these (of the jumper = sweater variety) are obviously "translations", but I reached the conclusion during that discussion that the only logical explanation for others was that they were differences resulting from parallel editing processes and that the US editors, who were coming in for considerable criticism, were not quite as blame-worthy as they were being depicted. JKR makes mistakes, too. ;-) GOF was published simultaneously in the US and in the UK, so manuscripts which still potentially contained errors and which needed final polishing were in the hands of both of publishers at the same time. We have an example of an authorial error treated differently by the respective publishers in the wand order mistake, which got through in first editions of both versions and which was subsequently corected by Bloomsbury but not (AFAIK) by Scholastic. I suggest that "murder" is another such mistake (perhaps the remnant of a change in plot?), which was picked up and corrected in the UK, but not in the US. Why, I can't imagine. I suspect that the curse scar, which Fudge either had or had never heard of acting as a warning, depending on the edition you read, is another example of parallel editing. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 5 09:11:46 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:11:46 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88098 bboy_mn wrote: > > > --- Quote Goblet of Fire - Am Ed - HB - pg 10 --- > > > "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. > > > "..., if *I* (my emphasis) murder --" > > > > > > "If?" whispered the second voice. "..., the Ministry need never > > > know that anyone else has died. ..., one more death > > > and our path to Harry Potter is clear. ..." > What on earth could the US publishers have been thinking? I can only > concluded that they didn't understand at all what they were reading, > because the original UK version makes perfect sense. Berit replies: It looks like the American publishers thought they'd make the text easier to understand by replacing the words "curse" and "obstacle" with "murder" and "someone dying" (don't Americans use the words "curse" and "obstacle"?). And they jumped to the conclusion that Voldemort was talking about killing someone since that was what happened to Bertha Jorkins. If I remember correctly it was indeed Crouch Jr's plan to get rid of Moody after the Triwizard Tournament, when he didn't need him for the Polyjuice potion anymore. But it still doesn't make the "translation" right because of all that happened before that. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Jan 5 00:57:38 2004 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:57:38 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- Quote Goblet of Fire - Am Ed - HB - pg 10 --- > "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. "All > through or journey I have gone over the plan in my head -- My lord, > Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and > if we proceed, if *I* (my emphasis) murder --" > > "If?" whispered the second voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, > Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died. > You will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could > do it myself, but in my present conditions... Come, Wormtail, one > one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not > asking you to do it alone. By that time, my /faithful/ servant will > have rejoined us--" GoF, UK Ed. PB. pp14-5. 'My Lord, I must speak!' said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. 'All through our journey I have gone over the plan in my head - my Lord, Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I curse -' 'If?' whispered the second voice. '/If/? If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared. You will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present condition...come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do this alone. By that time, my /faithful/ servant will have rejoined us - ' > -- continuing - GoF -Am Ed HB - pg 12 -- > "One more murder ...my faithful servant at Hogwarts ...Harry Potter > is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more > argument. Be quiet... I think I hear Nagini..." GoF, UK Ed. PB. p16. 'One more curse...my faithful servant at Hogwarts...Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more argument. But quiet...I think I hear Nagini...' Hope this helps, Steve. I must say, I find it rather baffling that the US version has "murder" here instead of "curse" (forgive me if this has been exhaustively discussed here before - this is my first post, and I haven't been lurking that long). "Murder" implies a moral judgement, and surely Voldemort would regard the death of Harry, for example, as a necessary act. "Curse", on the other hand, in my reading of the HP universe, is simply a technical term, like "charm" or "jinx". In the same way, while US "one more death" is admittedly neutral in the first quote, the UK version's "one more obstacle removed", to my ear, better suits Voldemort's utilitarian tone. I was aware, in a vague way, of some difference between the US and UK versions - "bangs" for "fringe", "Mom" for "Mum" and that sort of lexical thing - but these differences are of a different order. As to whose death is the second referred to, I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Mus From groups at e-dennis.net Mon Jan 5 01:13:43 2004 From: groups at e-dennis.net (Dennis) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:13:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: <005501c3d2ed$d95f7620$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88100 {Pippin wrote:} OOP evidence, briefly: Snape's refusal to take meals with the Order (Anne's Response} Which could as easily be, as I and others have pointed out, that Snape does not wish to have any more memories of the Order members as friends and.or allies than is absolutely necasary so that there's far less memories in his mind to support that fact should Voldy start seriously digging for proof that it's true. Or, if you really want to discard that theory, then there's the one that also fits in which is Snape is a truly antisocial bastard and although he works with these people sees no reason to sup with them. Third reason? It's Sirius's house. How many of you would be willing to eat dinner in the house of the person you most dislike, and certainly have difficulties being civil to if you didn't HAVE to be there? There are far more reasons than Vampirism for him not to stay at Grimauld Place...not to mention that he DOES eat with the other teachers at Hogwarts during dinner, in full veiw of students--so not needing normal human sustanence doesn't hold much water either. ________________________ Now Dennis: Haven't we seen Professor Snape eating a regular meal? He sat down with only 12 other people for a Christmas feast in Harry's third year, right? Granted Harry was a bit distracted by Trewlawney's dire predictions and again by the news that Snape was making Lupin more potion, but surely one of our three heroes would have noticed if Severus had foregone the turkey in favor of a vat of blood. And surely he had to eat, or Harry would have gone all paranoid that he'd poisoned the feast as he thought he might have been doing to Lupin. In light of this, I have to agree that meals should be considered a red herring clue. As for the other clues, I don't see enough to make me think Snape is even half vampire, though one never knows what clues the next book will reveal. He's too complex a character to have his foul attitude and overbearing demeanor explained away by his being simply half undead. No, I think it's something much more than a bite to the neck that's made him as bitter as he is even into adulthood. Harry was traumatized living with the Dursleys, but he got over it once he got to Hogwarts. It seems Snape's abuse continued even when he got away from the man in the penseive thanks to James and Sirius' tricks. I'm willing to bet he's putting up with something going on even now, just to help Dumbledore and the Order out. No wonder he's cranky when Neville melts a cauldron... We've seen a reason for him to pick on Harry (revenge), and I think he picks on Neville because he senses weakness, and that's one thing he can't stand given the strength it's taken for him to survive all his traumas. He's trying to make Neville stronger, he's just not very kind or fair in approaching it. Still haven't decided if some of the abuse comes from his knowing that one of these two will have to end Voldemort's reign or not, but that seems a reasonable theory for its intensity. I've been re-reading looking for clues that might indicate what Snape knows, but there are pretty few. I figure it'll be another book or two before we know. Ah well... Dennis From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 5 01:15:03 2004 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:15:03 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88101 bboy_mn wrote: Since no one seems to fit the bill for death, I suspect that reading the UK edition will give me some insight into what JKR intended to say here. Any help with the UK edition? hope this helps: (wormtail is trying to convince Voldie to use someone other than HP for the revival potion. Voldie thinks he just wants an excuse to get away from him to look for someone else...) VOLD: "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already told you, and I will use no other. I have waited thirteen years. A few more months will make no difference. As for the protection surrounding the boy, I believe my plan will be effective. All that is needed is a little coursge from you, Wormtail - courage you will find, unless you wish to feel the full extent of Lord Voldemort's wrath-" "MY LOrd,I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. " All through our journey I have gone over the paln in my head - my Lord, Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I *curse* (my emphasis) -" "If?" whispered the first voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared. You will do it quietly, and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present condition... come, wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have rejoined us -' *** "one more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more argument...." So yes, the use of the word "murder" changes things quite a bit. Here it makes more sense: wormtail must use the Imperius in order to complete the next step of the plan. Wormtail's reluctance is not in using the curse, it is in using Harry. One thing that still isn't solved, though is *who* this next curse is supposed to be for. It's obviously either Moody or Crouch Sr., but which one? they were both crucial to Voldie's plan, but he says "one" more curse, not two. firstly, LV says: "the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared..." he probably means that they need not know that Moody is missing at all (yes, Crouch went "missing" too, but I assume he had that part of the plan figured out, thus the letters to Percy to prevent any suspicion). However: "I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present condition..." It sounds like he's quite eager to get back at Crouch Sr. for all that anti-LV work he did back in the day...but he could also have a lot of hatred for Moody, for the same reasons, so it could be either one here. then, Vold. says: "come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear." who's the obstacle? Moody would definitely make it very difficult for Crouch Jr. to get his hands on Potter (or the portkey) if he somehow infltrated Hogwarts without stealing his identity, but I see Moody as more of tool than an obstacle in LV's eyes. Perhaps he hadn't decided to have Crouch Jr. take the polyjuice yet? On the other hand, Crouch Sr. is a big obstacle, because he's got Crouch Jr. under his control (incidentally, I thought Crouch Sr. was supposed to a the strict, unwavering, law abiding member of the ministry...and here he is, keeping his own son under one of the Unforgivables...Percy never would have believed it). finally: "I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my /faithful/ servant will have rejoined us -" hmmm doesn't sound like he's talking about cursing Crouch Sr. because the whole point of that would be to *free* his faithful servant. Sounds like he's expecting his servant by the time they've cursed Moody... so I'm right back to where I started, and have no idea who he means...but I'm sure it's one of the two... -Shaunie From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 5 03:21:23 2004 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:21:23 -0000 Subject: "brew fortune, bottle fame, put a stopper in death" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88102 hmm I always saw it as "stopper" meaning cork...like put liquid death in a bottle, not "stop" (prevent) death. Any ideas as to what Snape meant?(sorry for the short post....) From karenreiduk at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 5 05:55:50 2004 From: karenreiduk at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Karen=20Reid?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:55:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Correction was: Just suppose Snape is at the heart of it all Message-ID: <20040105055550.3180.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88103 Hi there, I have been a hugely enthusiastic, yet quiet lurker with this group for the past 6 months. I don?t tend to post as I struggle to keep up to date reading the high volume this group generates already without adding my contribution. I hoped the Christmas holidays would mean I could dedicate a bit more time, but it seems it wasn?t enough. Just before Christmas I posted a Snape theory that contained a couple of factual errors, a couple of spelling errors (damn my haste!) and a couple of areas of ambiguity. Unfortunately I have to go back into lurkerdom as my holiday is now over, and so rather than address each issue individually I thought it might be better to re-post the theory with factual corrections and additional comments. Before I do, may I say a big thank you to you all for your thoroughly enlightening and enjoyable insights past, present and future and wish you all a happy and healthy 2004. K (karenreiduk) We know for a fact that Snape was a trusted Death Eater because he has the Dark Mark. We also know that he became a Hogwarts Professor after Harry was born because Harry overheard Snape informing Umbridge of his 14 years of service during her inspection of Harry's 5th year potions class. But at the moment we can only theorise as to exactly when he switched sides, why, or what it was that he did to earn Dumbledore?s unwavering trust. Just suppose... Snape was the eavesdropper at the Hog's Head during Trelawney's prophecy. He only hears "the one with the power" and "born to those who defied him" and "as the seventh month dies" lines. He is thrown out before the "dark lord will mark him" line onwards. Snape reports back to Voldemort who assumes the part-heard prophecy is about a soon-to-be-born vanquisher. Snape is promoted to the role of Voldemort's #1 trusted DE. Voldemort hatches his Herod-like plan (Dumbledore tells us that the prophecy was overheard before Harry was born in July and that Voldemort doesn't visit Godric's Hollow until 15 months later). Just suppose that the reason Snape deserts Voldemort is because he is devastated when he realises that the Potter's new born will be under attack ? Snape owes James a life-debt for being saved from The Prank. He turns to Dumbledore. Snape reveals Voldemort's plan and admits he was an eavesdropper to the prophecy. Dumbledore expresses concern about Snape's future safety as a turncoat DE. He urges Snape to learn Occlumency to disguise his "rebirth" from Voldemort. Thus also enabling him to go back into Voldemort's inner circle and work as an undercover spy for The Order. By switching allegiance and going back in to spy on Voldemort Snape was earning DDs unwavering trust. Dumbledore considers this new information and consults his pensive memory of the full prophecy. He is now equipped to interpret it as follows:- "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches " (He interprets this as tip-toeing-up-to-eavesdrop-at-the-door-"approaches" not soon-to-be-born-"approaches".) "Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies " (He interprets this as an individual re-born to a cause, not a child born to parents.) "The Dark Lord will mark him as his equal " (He interprets ?The Dark Lord will mark him? literally.) FURTHER:- He interprets ?his equal? as his peer, cohort or ally. "But he will have power the Dark Lord knows not " (He relates this to Snape becoming an accomplished Occlumens and using the power to thwart Voldemort. The Dark Lord still knows nothing of this power 16 years later at the end of Book 5.) Dumbledore realises that the prophecy is not about Harry or Neville or any other child born at the end of July. The prophecy is about Snape. But Voldemort doesn't know that. Dumbledore decides to use the kids as decoys while he sets about orchestrating a big standoff between Snape and Voldemort. In the meantime he sends the Potters and the Longbottoms into hiding and arranges fidelius charms and secret keepers. FURTHER:- Also suppose that the Keeper of the Hall of Prophecy currently has our orb labelled ?Dark Lord and (?)?. In his real life game of wizard?s chess he didn't factor in the Wormtail equation. Voldemort turns up at Godric's Hollow. James tries to head him off downstairs while Lily performs a love/protection/impervious spell on Harry that involves runes and complicated charms. Voldemort kills James, then Lily. His AK strikes Harry but is deflected by the protection, which takes physical form as the ancient rune symbol of eihwaz (or defence) at the point of impact on Harry?s forehead. FURTHER:- Could this same protection explain why other characters feel pain when they are in the process of trying to physically abuse Harry? E.g. Quirrell at the end of the first book and Uncle Vernon at the beginning of the last (or mentally with the red weal that Snape put down to a Stinging Hex in the Occlumency lesson in OoP). FURTHER STILL:- Could this protection also have been intended to extend to supplying Harry with his Voldie-radar ? another of Dumbledore?s more brilliant ideas perhaps? Voldemort is vapour. And Harry is the boy that lived. Dumbledore had been caught flat-footed and is left with the fallout at the Potters and the Longbottoms. Voldemort isn't dead. He could come back. If he comes back he'll be after the now orphaned Harry. So Harry is packed off to the Dursleys with the blood protection. FURTHER:- Dumbledore tells us that it then ?seemed plain? to the Keeper of the Hall of Prophecies that the prophecy orb should be ?relabelled?. But notice that the ?(?)? still remains. For this whole Snape theory package to work that ?(?)? would have to allow for alternative interpretations. Snape is left temporarily impotent but remains a kill or be killed time bomb. Dumbledore has to keep him close, and keep him safe just incase Voldemort ever comes back, but no one can ever know that Snape is the true hero. Snape starts work at Hogwarts but has to keep up the pretence of cow towing to the establishment just like his old DE friends (Malfoy etc). He wants the DADA professorship, but DD holds his dark past against him. They sit back and wait. Harry starts Hogwarts untainted by his fame and puzzled by Snape's obvious resentment of it. Snape is the rightful champion of the story, living under the cloud of his fate with no option but to sit back while "The Boy That Lived" steals his limelight. Hence the frequent venting of spite and sarcasm at Harry's expense. Voldemort makes his first appearance during Harry's first year at Hogwarts and Dumbledore has all his wizards? chess pieces in place. They remain in place and working nicely (other than the occasional inconvenient interference from the remaining Marauders) to this day. Harry is currently back with the Dursleys waiting to start his sixth year at Hogwarts where he will reprise his role of decoy-extraordinaire. Just suppose that Snape is at the heart of it all that JKR spoke of to Jeremy Paxman at the release of The Order of the Phoenix. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 5 13:01:48 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:01:48 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88104 Dennis wrote: Still haven't decided if some of the abuse comes from his knowing that one of these two [Neville and Harry] will have to end Voldemort's reign or not, but that seems a reasonable theory for its intensity. I've been re-reading looking for clues that might indicate what Snape knows, but there are pretty few. I figure it'll be another book or two before we know. Ah well... Berit replies: I know of one incident where Snape reveals he knows, or rather; suspects, something: In the duelling scene in CoS, Snape makes Draco conjure a snake at Harry, forcing Harry to reveal he is a parselmouth. I don't think it's just a lucky coincidence Snape asked Draco to throw a snake at Harry. Snape clearly wanted to set Harry straight; to know just how "like" he and Voldie are... That's my two knuts. Even if Snape doesn't know about the prophecy (or knows just a part of it), he clearly suspects Harry might have inherited more than a scar from Voldemort's attack. Smart guy, Snape :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com Mon Jan 5 12:04:48 2004 From: Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com (Anne) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:04:48 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040105131750.02614950@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88105 {Tanya} Now Werewolves. ie Lupin. First, regardless of his condition, he is a very popular character. However, I have this question. I know he transforms only once a month and vampires are 24/7. Lets ask this. If he accidently bit someone in his human form, what would happen, would that person then have the curse or not? {Anne} Hmmmm...as far as I remember, werewolf legend states that a person is turned into a werewolf when they are bitten by one during the full moon. At all other times, other then a few physical oddities (Hairy palms, eyebrows that grow together, feral personality), werewolves are pretty much normal human beings, and cannot pass on thier condition. The other way legend states that a person can become a werewolf is to make a deal with the Devil (or evil spirits, if you don't want to link the condition to a specific religious view-point). Interesting question though...I'll have to go re-read my two werewolf books again....*sigh* time to get out the french/latin/whatever dictionaries again (The authors left half the passages in thier original languages without translating them...^^;). Anne From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 13:26:19 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:26:19 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88106 strawberryshaunie at y wrote ( wormtail is trying to convince Voldie to use someone other than HP for the revival potion. Voldie thinks he just wants an excuse to get away from him to look for someone else...) VOLD: "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already told you, and I will use no other. I have waited thirteen years. A few more months will make no difference. As for the protection surrounding the boy, I believe my plan will be effective. All that is needed is a little coursge from you, Wormtail - courage you will find, unless you wish to feel the full extent of Lord Voldemort's wrath-" "MY LOrd,I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. " All through our journey I have gone over the paln in my head - my Lord, Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I *curse* (my emphasis) -" "If?" whispered the first voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared. You will do it quietly, and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present condition... come, wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have rejoined us -' vmonte responds: Could they be talking about another boy here? Maybe Rowling's original word was "murder," but changed it to "curse" so as not to give something away. Could one of the children at school have been murdered, or made to disappear--and then replacd by the faithful servant? It seems as though they are talking about this boy all the way through and that once this boy is removed the path to Harry Potter becomes more clear. Whoever Voldie and Wormtail are talking about it seems as though Voldie would have enjoyed doing the act himself. From Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com Mon Jan 5 11:51:40 2004 From: Anne-TMC-Rcvg.Campbell at tenethealth.com (Anne) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:51:40 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88107 {Pippin} > > My Snape's a vampire theory isn't against Snape at all, if by that > you mean an argument that Snape is ultimately against the > cause of good. {Anne} (OT: Didn;t mean to take so long to respond...have a nasty addiction known as Final Fantasy....oops) Anyhow, back on topic...) I agree with that statement...but as I said, it isn';t just you per se, or another person, but many people who, when theorizing about Snape tend to go after theories that put him in a very bad light, and most often as the "bad guy". Vampirism in and of itself may not be a 'bad' thing in the HP universe (although it obviously carries a huge stigmatism with those 'in the know' in the wizarding world), but it certainly adds to his already 'evil' reputation--not something that at this point really needs to be pounded into the readers' heads than is already has been. It would be, whether for ill or good, overkill, and although Rowling will make a point time and again subtly until she actually wacks you over the head with it, I think this theory is more along the lines of a red herring... {Pippin} It may be that being a vampire, or part vampire, > he has no innate fellow-feeling towards humans, or human > children. He may have no natural desire to help others and does > not get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when he does so. So every > good action he does is by an act of will, which by some > estimations would make him more moral than a person who is > kindly and helpful and never feels any inclination to be otherwise. {Anne} And again, I concurre that that would make him even more complicated and three dimensional(and admirable that he could see beyond his inhuman viewpoint to participate in the WW events), but the thing is that he DOES have human emotion, and very intense emotion at that. Unfortunately, a lot of it is resentment, anger, even hatred (although who he actually hates is up for heated debate...lol). Like Harry (who lived in hell while living with the Dursleys), he was a victim of abuse. Unlike Harry, it doesn't seem that he escaped it in time to NOT have scars, nor does it look like he ever had the chance to 'work it out' later in life--so it does color many of his actions and reactions. Again, using myself as a reference, I very nearly went down his road in regards to other people--but I had other people to look out for me at that point, and so managed to escape being a total monster as I become an adult. Without them, I could very well have been Snape myself... {Pippin} Hagrid and Maxime are, as you say, obviously half-giant. They > can't fool anyone but themselves, and Rowling wants us to see > that. But what if someone could carry off such a charade > successfully, fully accepted by someone like Fudge, who was > quite prepared to award an Order of Merlin to Severus? What > price would there be for that? Is there another character in that > situation? {Anne} No, there isn't at the moment. Although you could as easily use Snape's spy role in the same context or at least similar. If he's faking his allegience to the Death Eaters so that he can be accepted and spied upon, and is then found out, there will certainly be a horrid price to pay. And if the reverse is true, and he's really 'faking it' for Dumbledore, I'm sure the consequences will be just as dire in another manner (although not as messy). As for the 'stigma' part of being a vampire...well, considering Severus's own nature bites him in the ass already....^^; I would like to see the possibility explored, don't get me wrong, but I don't think Snape is really going to be the one saddled with it, if for no other reason than because he has so many other things he has to work through and survive as a character. And, as someone else pointed out, the books are not just about Harry and Snape...there are other characters that deserve more time in the spotlight...and a good, angstful situation to deal with. Putting it all on Snape is a waste of characters, and really does bend to 'cliche' territory. Anne (Who really needs a cup of coffee....^^;) Morning all! From adelram at edsamail.com.ph Mon Jan 5 11:33:22 2004 From: adelram at edsamail.com.ph (Rai-chan:>) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:33:22 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88108 >I think he'll end up with Luna Lovegood. She's a character that just >sees Harry as Harry and not as "The Boy Who Lived". The fact that >she seems quite uninterested in his fame might just be what Harry >needs...(I have NEVER believed in Harry/Hermione, they're just >friends.) Rai-chan replies: Maybe you're right. I quite agree with you about Hermione and I think she'll be paired up with Ron since it's pretty obvious how jealous Ron is to every guy Hermione's having crush with. Staring with Gilderoy Lockhart. I mean Harry didn't object that Hermione got a picture of him under her pillows in CoS but Ron did. It was also Ron who tried "unsuccesfully" to defend Hermione when Malfoy called her mudblood (in CoS also). And in GoF, Ron, who's a fan of Krum, suddenly said snickering remarks about him when Hermione went out with Krum (and Harry said it's fine so I guess he really doesn't see her as more than friend). And Hermione also showed a bit of jealousy from time to time. Lastly, they always fight. I mean the universal rule is that people who always fight ends up together. That's my opinion though...No offense to H/H fans Rai-chan:> _______________________________________ EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT. www.edsamail.com.ph From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 5 15:20:45 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:20:45 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Seems to be a Snapeologists benefit on the site lately. Goody. Lots of scope for exposition of theories, prejudices and analyses. In common with many, I have favoured notions about the Hogwarts Potionsmeister, but I can't stretch them as far as Vampirism or Animagitis. Mine mostly have as a basis the W.C.Fields tenet that anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad. Pippin takes a different line to the majority (if I understand correctly) in wondering if Snape is not the representation of an emotional state or psychological profile brought into the the books to round off the cast list; a modern version of a mask from an ancient Greek play. No doubt I'll get a stiff note for grasping the wrong end of the stick(if that is the case), but never mind, it's never stopped me before. Pippin: > My Snape's a vampire theory isn't against Snape at all, if by that > you mean an argument that Snape is ultimately against the > cause of good. It may be that being a vampire, or part vampire, > he has no innate fellow-feeling towards humans, or human > children. He may have no natural desire to help others and does > not get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when he does so. So every > good action he does is by an act of will, which by some > estimations would make him more moral than a person who is > kindly and helpful and never feels any inclination to be otherwise. > > Hagrid and Maxime are, as you say, obviously half-giant. They > can't fool anyone but themselves, and Rowling wants us to see > that. But what if someone could carry off such a charade > successfully, fully accepted by someone like Fudge, who was > quite prepared to award an Order of Merlin to Severus? What > price would there be for that? Is there another character in that > situation? > Kneasy: I have to admit to an instinctive mistrust of what could be called the 'Chinese menu option' for peopling a story: "Right, we'll have a number 5, two number 9s, a 23 and..." Sure, it's an uncommon tale that doesn't have hero, villain, victim, etc. etc., but that's a bit different from attempting to stuff examples of human foibles and failings into the plot not because they are necessary, but because they exist in real life and an example (or moral) can be drawn from them. Maybe JKR is laying down more moral markers than I see, but I have difficulty translating Vampire!Snape into that category. He's already presented facets of personality that cause any sentient reader to pause for thought; would throwing fangs at midnight into the mix help or hinder the readers understanding? Hinder, IMO. It would excuse rather than explain - a cop out. Snape is being driven by more than the instinctive behaviour of a mythical beast. Or he'd better be; otherwise I want my money back. Most readers and watchers of film and TV have very strong images of what a vampire is and how a vampire behaves. Does Snape fit the profile? Again, I don't believe so. Those that have delved into the mythology and folklore have unearthed some interesting versions of vampire lore that are a credit to their search engines (or Grimmoires - take your pick), but still I'm not persuaded. There seems to be a lot of special pleading; claims that meals, mirrors, daylight, garlic, can be dismissed with a convoluted explanation or two. In this I'm a sceptic, so solid evidence, please; something along the lines of pupils with puncture marks, blood dribbling into his soup, a coffin filled with earth in the Slytherin common-room would do. (Oh, and there's a possible alternative explanation for the blood sweeties in Honeydukes too. Hags. They just love the taste of blood (one gets served raw liver in Diagon Alley). They also seem to be fairly common in the WW.) Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead persuasion: 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human. 2. Only humans, not beasts, are allowed wands. (FBaWTFT) As to the idea of a half-vampire... I posted a whimsical note a few months back wondering how the hell it would be done (77088). The practical difficulties seem daunting, what with the normal partner wearing impervious neck-guards or the afflicted one having a total extraction of their teeth, though bondage might appeal to some. The Animagus option appeals even less. That would just be boring. For a supposedly very rare and closely monitored type we've had too many to be credible already. And there are suspicions that another (DD) may pop out of the woodwork any minute. Grrr! What would being an Animagus achieve anyway? Well, it might help with information gathering, spying or whatever. The trouble is, I don't really think Snape is a spy in the conventional meaning of the word. I think (hope) he's up to something else - just don't ask me what; not just yet. To regard him as a spy would further diminish the power, paranoia and vindictiveness of Voldy and he's not living up to his billing as the almost-equal of DD as it is. Further fallibility would diminish his credibility as Emperor-of-the-Universe-in-waiting and might make him a push-over for Luna Lovegood, let alone Harry. So I'm quite satisfied with the Snape that has developed over the last 5 books. A complex, contradictory, bad-tempered, miserable old git who can bear a grudge till it dies of old age. Someone I can look up to and hope one day to emulate. "There was a Caesar; whence comes another?" Kneasy From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 5 15:44:45 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:44:45 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88110 > (wormtail is trying to convince Voldie to use someone other than HP > for the revival potion. Voldie thinks he just wants an excuse to get away from him to look for someone else...) > VOLD: "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already told > you, and I will use no other. I have waited thirteen years. A few > more months will make no difference. As for the protection > surrounding the boy, I believe my plan will be effective. All that is needed is a little coursge from you, Wormtail - courage you will > find, unless you wish to feel the full extent of Lord Voldemort's > wrath-" > > "My Lord,I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. " All through our journey I have gone over the plan in my head - my Lord, Bertha Jorkins's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I *curse* (my emphasis) -" > > "If?" whispered the first voice. "/If/? If you follow the plan, > Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has > disappeared. You will do it quietly, and without fuss; I only wish > that I could do it myself, but in my present condition... come, > wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is > clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have rejoined us -' > > "one more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry > Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more argument...." Mandy here; I recently listened to GoF on tape and the question of who is to be murdered/cursed is driving me crazy. I still believe it is Mad Eye but another idea keeps lurking in the back of my head. And that is Petunia. LV says "As for the protection surrounding the boy, I believe my plan will be effective." Aside form Hogwarts and DD, Petunia is the only other true obstacle in LV way in getting to Harry, because of her blood protection over him. If she were to die, or be incapacitated by a curse the way is clear for LV to go after Harry while he is out of school and at his most vulnerable. I'm certain LV wouldn't mind wipping out Lily's family for the trouble she has caused him over the last 15 years. And going after Petunia would scare Wormtail but the but fault with this idea that I can't justify is that going after Petunia Dursley would not go unnoticed by the Ministry or DD for that matter. Just a thought. Mandy From entropymail at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 17:48:32 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:48:32 -0000 Subject: Prague As A Possible Durmstrang Location? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88111 Hello, everyone! Saw a show last night on PBS that dealt with the history of alchemy. Many famous alchemists were mentioned, including Nicholas Flamel (yes, he was real and yes, he is said to have produced a Philosopher's Stone) and Paracelsus (remember that bust of Paracelsus mentioned in OOP?). Well, about halfway through the show, Prague was mentioned. Apparently, Prague had become a hotspot of alchemical activity in the 16th century, even after it had fallen from favor throughout much of Europe. Alchemists were often known to communicate through complicated codes and beautifully colored, symbolic drawings. Many of these drawings eventually became used as a source of divination, becoming what is now known at Tarot cards. Prague's streets are said to move (not unlike Hogwarts' staircases), and Prague is known as the birthplace of vampires. With this strong connection to alchemy, divination, and others, it struck me that Prague or it's surrounding areas may be a perfect spot for a Durmstrang location. Although it's got somewhat mild spring/summers (60F), the winters are supposed to be brutal. That would jibe with the heavy cloaks worn by the Durmstrang students upon their arrival at Hogwarts. There is also the heavily trafficked Prague River, which runs through the middle of Prague, hence the arrival by ship. Let me know what you think. :: Entropy :: From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 17:48:02 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:48:02 -0000 Subject: Back to the Mirror Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88112 I have just reread my HP collection, and have been wondering some things about the Mirror of Erised in SS. We know that the mirror reflects the viewer's heart's true desire, and for Harry (when he first encounters it, anyway) his heart's true desire is to see his long lost family, including his mother and father. When he sees them, though, he doesn't just see a simple reflection, he sees his mother is crying, presumably at her longing to be with him. Why is that? Do the figures inside the mirror have some sentient existence like the spell shadows that come out of LV's wand in GoF? Is there a way, perhaps, for Harry to communicate with them through the mirror? Could Sirius be there now, too? Will the mirror be back in the future? Or will Harry's deepest desire be something different now, like being a whole other person? Thoughts? Meri From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 5 18:12:03 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88113 Tanya: > > Now Werewolves. ie Lupin. First, regardless of his condition, he is > a very popular character. However, I have this question. I know he > transforms only once a month and vampires are 24/7. Lets ask this. > If he accidently bit someone in his human form, what would happen, > would that person then have the curse or not? Okay, I am treading on shaky ground for a L.O.O.N., answering from work without my books handy. I *believe* that it was established that Lupin was safe to be around when he was a human, that you couldn't catch lycanthropy from a human bite. That may have been circumstantial; I'm remembering Lupin explaining in PoA, "A werewolf is only a danger..." but I can't remember how the quote ends. Rgh. We *have* established that a wizard cannot catch the disease while in animal form--for Sirius fought Lupin-wolf as a dog, and is not subsequently a werewolf; nor does it follow that becoming animagi in the first place would be a way for them to be with Lupin, if they could still catch it. ARGH. Need books. Must find quote. I think it's during the Shrieking Shack sequence. ~Amanda From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Jan 5 18:43:22 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:43:22 EST Subject: Vampires and Werewolves Message-ID: <1a0.1f0f2182.2d2b0a4a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88114 Amanda > Okay, I am treading on shaky ground for a L.O.O.N., answering from > work without my books handy. > > I *believe* that it was established that Lupin was safe to be around > when he was a human, that you couldn't catch lycanthropy from a human > bite. That may have been circumstantial; I'm remembering Lupin > explaining in PoA, "A werewolf is only a danger..." but I can't > remember how the quote ends. Rgh. ~Eloise L.O.O.N.'s assistant riding to rescue: "A werewolf is only a danger to people" (explaining why James et al became animagi). PoA, 260, UK PB. Amanda: > > We *have* established that a wizard cannot catch the disease while in > animal form--for Sirius fought Lupin-wolf as a dog, and is not > subsequently a werewolf; nor does it follow that becoming animagi in > the first place would be a way for them to be with Lupin, if they > could still catch it. Eloise: No. Quite. In the past we've argued about why Sirius wasn't infected - whether he was bitten or scratched by Lupin - pointlessly, it seems, as this quote makes it quite clear that whichever, he wouldn't have been infected by the lycanthropy. Amanda: > ARGH. Need books. Must find quote. I think it's during the Shrieking > Shack sequence. Eloise: Yes, it is. But, IIRC, there is no direct evidence that an untransformed werewolf's bite *couldn't* infect someone. I doubt very much that it would, but it might be simply that the untransformed werewolf *knows* that he mustn't bite anyone (and frankly, under most circumstances, as older children or adults it's not something we go round doing very much ) and has to restrain him/herself. The biting, of course, is a direct parallel with the transmission of vampirism, isn't it, although the werewolf is not in control of his actions, whhle the vampire is and, I presume, *needs* to bite to live. If that's what the undead do. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 5 19:44:49 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:44:49 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts References: <1073269334.10114.26708.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001601c3d3c4$7362a040$98e76151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 88115 Diana L wrote: > I believe that if Voldemort had met or even knew about Petunia >and her family, he would have killed them long before Harry ever >came to live with them. Judging by her reaction in the quote below, >Petunia knows Voldemort is a very bad guy and I honestly can't see >her throwing her own nephew to him to be murdered despite her long- >repressed anger and jealousy toward her sister. Petunia is awful - >but not THAT awful. You may well have put your finger firmly on the key to where Petunia's coming from. It's worth wondering about _when_ and _how_ Petunia and Lily's parents died. They were both alive when the girls were in school, but by the time Harry was orphaned, Petunia was his only living close relative. Happened very suddently, therefore. I think it's quite possible that Death Eaters, if not Voldemort himself, did find out about Lily's family and killed them, and that's precisely why Petunia hates the WW so much and got so scared about learning that Voldemort had returned. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From jakejensen at hotmail.com Mon Jan 5 20:22:59 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:22:59 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88116 Kneasy wrote: > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead > persuasion: > 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human. > 2. Only humans, not beasts, are allowed wands. (FBaWTFT) This has been stated before, but thought I would repeat it. If Hagrid & Lupin have wands, why couldn't Snape as well? Especially since vampirism is probably something he contracted (i.e., bit by a vampire). This would mean he was already a wizard and then was bit, so why would he give up his wand? Also, the rule might be better stated as, "Known beasts are not allowed to legally have wands." Snape is a vampire theory assumes that very few know he is a vampire (not the MoM to be sure). Jake From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 20:23:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:23:24 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: <121.29b35c88.2d2a7439@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88117 Eloise wrote: > GOF was published simultaneously in the US and in the UK, so manuscripts > which still potentially contained errors and which needed final polishing were in > the hands of both of publishers at the same time. We have an example of an > authorial error treated differently by the respective publishers in the wand > order mistake, which got through in first editions of both versions and which was > subsequently corected by Bloomsbury but not (AFAIK) by Scholastic. > I just checked my Scholastic edition, which I thought had been corrected. Nope. Harry's mother appears before his father in the Priori Incantatem scene (Am. paper back ed. 667). Does anyone know if there are differences between the American paperback and hardback editions? Maybe the error has been cleared up in the hardback? If not, someone should write to Scholastic about it--and about the murder/curse blunder, too. It never occurred to me that my own confusion over that scene resulted from an error in "translation"! Thanks to all involved for asking and answering that question. Carol From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 5 20:58:50 2004 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:58:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius Malfoy's escape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <102681156.20040105125850@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88118 Saturday, January 3, 2004, 6:42:54 PM, justcarol67 wrote: j> ... we've yet to seen any Wizard lawyers. We've yet to see any evidence that the WW observes Magna Carta or Common Law *AT ALL*. (Maybe being a Muggle isn't so bad, all in all.) -- Dave From shirley2allie at hotmail.com Mon Jan 5 21:09:20 2004 From: shirley2allie at hotmail.com (Shirley) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:09:20 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88119 > Eloise wrote: > > > > GOF was published simultaneously in the US and in the UK, so > manuscripts > > which still potentially contained errors and which needed final > polishing were in > > the hands of both of publishers at the same time. We have an example > of an > > authorial error treated differently by the respective publishers in > the wand > > order mistake, which got through in first editions of both versions > and which was > > subsequently corected by Bloomsbury but not (AFAIK) by Scholastic. > > Carol: > I just checked my Scholastic edition, which I thought had been > corrected. Nope. Harry's mother appears before his father in the > Priori Incantatem scene (Am. paper back ed. 667). Does anyone know if > there are differences between the American paperback and hardback > editions? Maybe the error has been cleared up in the hardback? If not, > someone should write to Scholastic about it--and about the > murder/curse blunder, too. It never occurred to me that my own > confusion over that scene resulted from an error in "translation"! > Thanks to all involved for asking and answering that question. > > Carol now Shirley: Yes, there are differences between the hardback and paperback editions of the American printing. I have the original printing of GoF in hardback, and I bought the paperback 4-book set this summer (to carry around more easily as I re-read things). The wand order has been "corrected" in the paperback version of GoF - that was one of the first things I looked at when I opened the set. And I join with Carol in saying "thanks" to Steve for bringing that up again. Even though I hadn't thought about that issue since I read it in another thread some time ago, it suddenly made sense this time (okay, okay, so I'm a little thick sometimes! ;-)). Shirley, apologizing in advance if lots of other people answer Carol's question about the books From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 5 21:11:23 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:11:23 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > > This has been stated before, but thought I would repeat it. If > Hagrid & Lupin have wands, why couldn't Snape as well? Especially > since vampirism is probably something he contracted (i.e., bit by a > vampire). This would mean he was already a wizard and then was bit, > so why would he give up his wand? Also, the rule might be better > stated as, "Known beasts are not allowed to legally have wands." > Snape is a vampire theory assumes that very few know he is a vampire > (not the MoM to be sure). The thought of a vampire, with a wand, plus the ability to perform the Imperius curse would be an interesting development at Hogwarts, don't you think? Since vampires find nourishment from fresh blood *only*, the staff and pupils would present as the equivalent of the local supermarket. Even DD isn't that easy-going with the personal weaknesses of others. I think that if Snape were of that inclination there would be solid evidence by now. But all I can see is wishful thinking and no evidence. He's pale, thin, dresses in black. And? All the evidence that he is not a vampire is shuffled off to one side; the outdoor activities in daylight, the Foe Glass, garlic in Quirrells turban, turning up to school feasts, etc. are regarded as awkward but ignorable facts. Special pleading abounds. "Maybe he's taking a potion; maybe he's a half vampire; maybe.." Maybe he's not a vampire. No one seems to consider who he would feed on if he were a vampire. After 14 years at Hogwarts you'd expect a victim or two in the vicinity. Sorry, I'm not convinced, I'm not even suspicious. Lupin, in werewolf mode, cannot use a wand - a thought that probably influenced DD when he admitted him to the school. Hagrid. Well, he probably got his by inheriting magical talent from his human father. Knowing the attitudes of some in the WW it's a little surprising that he had a wand in the first place. There's a lot of prejudice against half-breeds among those with influence. But you'll note he has made no attempt to regain wand-holding status despite being innocent of Riddle's accusations. Fudge and his minions would probably object, and he knows it. Kneasy From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jan 5 21:19:08 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:19:08 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: <1a0.1f0f2182.2d2b0a4a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88121 Amanda wrote:- <<>> Eloise, the L.O.O.N assistant replied:- <<< No. Quite. In the past we've argued about why Sirius wasn't infected - whether he was bitten or scratched by Lupin - pointlessly, it seems, as this quote makes it quite clear that whichever, he wouldn't have been infected by the lycanthropy. But, IIRC, there is no direct evidence that an untransformed werewolf's bite *couldn't* infect someone. I doubt very much that it would, but it might be simply that the untransformed werewolf *knows* that he mustn't bite anyone (and frankly, under most circumstances, as older children or adults it's not something we go round doing very much ) and has to restrain him/herself.<<< Ali, complete with L.O.O.N. cap, and cushion to sit on over fence finds further evidence:- OoP gives us more insight to the dangers of werewolves other than Lupin, but is inconclusive: OoP p. 431 UK edition: " A Werewolf?" whispered Mrs Weasley, looking alarmed. Is he safe in a public ward? Shouldn't he be in a private room?" "It's two weeks till the full moon", Mr Weasley reminded her quietly. [The new Werewolf] "Said he'd give me another bite if I didn't shut up" said Mr Weasley sadly" I would conclude from the passage that Werewolves are only a threat when transformed. But, people are so frightened of them, that the new werewolf is using this reputation to intimidate Mr Weasley. However, I could see that it is possible to interpret the Werewolf's threat as a threat to make Mr Weasley a Werewolf. Ali Thinking it high time that Eloise gained official LOON status - Please join the gang! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 21:31:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:31:52 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88122 > Seems to be a Snapeologists benefit on the site lately. Goody. Lots > of scope for exposition of theories, prejudices and analyses. > > In common with many, I have favoured notions about the Hogwarts > Potionsmeister, but I can't stretch them as far as Vampirism or > Animagitis. Mine mostly have as a basis the W.C.Fields tenet that > anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad. > > > Maybe JKR is laying down more moral markers than I see, but I > have difficulty translating Vampire!Snape into that category. He's > already presented facets of personality that cause any sentient > reader to pause for thought; would throwing fangs at midnight > into the mix help or hinder the readers understanding? > Hinder, IMO. It would excuse rather than explain - a cop out. > Snape is being driven by more than the instinctive behaviour > of a mythical beast. Or he'd better be; otherwise I want my > money back. > > > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead > persuasion: > > So I'm quite satisfied with the Snape that has developed over the > last 5 books. A complex, contradictory, bad-tempered, miserable > old git who can bear a grudge till it dies of old age. > Carol: Sorry to snip Kneasy's great post, almost all of which I agree with. I just have one complaint. Why call him "old Snape" when he's still in his thirties, the same age as Remus Lupin, whom JKR refers to at least twice as "young"? He may be "old" from the perspective of his students, but he certainly isn't from mine! Carol, with apologies for altering the title of the post without a "was:" From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Jan 5 22:08:20 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:08:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse Message-ID: <99.41a5eee3.2d2b3a54@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88123 In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:42:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: I just checked my Scholastic edition, which I thought had been corrected. Nope. Harry's mother appears before his father in the Priori Incantatem scene That IS the corrected order. The spells come out from recent to next recent, and so on backward - since Lily died AFTER James, she SHOULD come out of the wand first. The first editions had them reversed, with James coming out before Lily. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 22:18:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:18:47 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: <99.41a5eee3.2d2b3a54@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:42:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, > justcarol67 at y... writes: > I just checked my Scholastic edition, which I thought had been > corrected. Nope. Harry's mother appears before his father in the > Priori Incantatem scene > > That IS the corrected order. The spells come out from recent to next recent, > and so on backward - since Lily died AFTER James, she SHOULD come out of the > wand first. The first editions had them reversed, with James coming out > before Lily. > > Sherrie You're right. No wonder I was thinking that the error had been corrected. It had! The "murder" for "curse" error still stands, though. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 21:26:49 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:26:49 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88125 Mandy wrote: I recently listened to GoF on tape and the question of who is to be murdered/cursed is driving me crazy. I still believe it is Mad Eye but another idea keeps lurking in the back of my head. And that is Petunia. LV says "As for the protection surrounding the boy, I believe my plan will be effective." Aside form Hogwarts and DD, Petunia is the only other true obstacle in LV way in getting to Harry, because of her blood protection over him. If she were to die, or be incapacitated by a curse the way is clear for LV to go after Harry while he is out of school and at his most vulnerable. I'm certain LV wouldn't mind wipping out Lily's family for the trouble she has caused him over the last 15 years. And going after Petunia would scare Wormtail but the but fault with this idea that I can't justify is that going after Petunia Dursley would not go unnoticed by the Ministry or DD for that matter. vmonte responds: Good theory! Petunia could be replaced just like Moody was. What if Narcissa or Bellatrix took over as Petunia? (I'm just picking any name here). vmonte From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 5 23:04:04 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:04:04 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88126 > Kneasy: > Most readers and watchers of film and TV have very strong > images of what a vampire is and how a vampire behaves. >Does Snape fit the profile? Again, I don't believe so. Then it's odd that so many people have indepently made the connection. Kneasy: > (Oh, and there's a possible alternative explanation for the > blood sweeties in Honeydukes too. Hags. They just love > the taste of blood (one gets served raw liver in Diagon Alley). > They also seem to be fairly common in the WW.) Well, I've got to go with Hermione here. She said they were for vampires, and on matters of fact she has never yet been wrong. Kneasy: > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead persuasion: > 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human. It does??? FBAWTFT states explicitly in the footnote on page xiii that vampires are creatures which have "being" status. This tells us two things. They are considered intelligent and they are alive. Not undead spirits, whatever Muggle legend may relate. Since as "non-wizarding" people they would presumably be forbidden to use wands, that would be an powerful motive for Snape to keep his vampire status secret, would it not? I don't really see why being a vampire would be too much--not from Rowling. She is the one who put two monsters in the castle, two hidden animagi, etc, etc. I wouldn't discount child abuse as an explanation for Snape's temperament, but does it have to be the only reason? Carol wrote: >> If there are any foils involved, they would reflect Snape, not the other way around. Sirius, for example, resembles Snape in more ways than Lupin does, even to details of physical appearance and a tendency to be angry. Since he's the less developed characterand appears in fewer books, it makes sense to have him as the foil to snape rather than the other way around. As for Lupin, he's just a decent person and competent teacher who has the misfortune to be a werewolf and is again out of a job<< Oh yes! it's the similarity between Lupin and Sirius in relationship to Snape (and Harry) that first made me suspect that Lupin might be other than a decent person. Carol: > Nope. Snape is sufficiently complicated without adding being a vampire to the mix. < This part I don't follow. One might as well say that Hermione is sufficiently complicated without being Muggleborn . Rowling has given a great many of her characters conditions which they did not choose, can't change, and against which there is very strong cultural bias. Carol: >And as I'm sure you'll admit, there are alternative > explanations for all the "clues" on your list. Of course! Rowling is much too clever to give us unambiguous evidence. Snape is a mystery and she is not ready to reveal everything she knows. Carol: >> I just want to know why he joined the Death Eaters and why he quit and what he's up to now. That's plenty, don't you think?<< And you don't think being a vampire could have a teensy weensy bit of something to do with that? I am not saying that being a vampire is the sole explanation for his bad attitude or that it gives him an excuse for joining the Death Eaters. That's too simple. But suppose, as a young man, Snape believed that wizarding society would never,ever accept or value him for what he truly is, and that Voldemort and his followers would. Tempting, I think. And there is plenty of relevance to the real world. There seems to be a feeling on the list that only a "monster", a psychopath like Barty Jr. or a criminal opportunist like Lucius Malfoy could become a Death Eater. But in the real world there never seems to be a shortage of morally educated and supposedly civilized people willing to do dirty work for the Hitlers and Stalins and the other blood-stained horrors of the past and present. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 23:52:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:52:28 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88127 > Carol wrote: > > Nope. Snape is sufficiently complicated without adding being a > vampire to the mix. < > Pippin responded: > This part I don't follow. One might as well say that Hermione is > sufficiently complicated without being Muggleborn . Rowling has > given a great many of her characters conditions which they did > not choose, can't change, and against which there is very strong > cultural bias. Carol again: I just meant that Snape is sufficiently complicated with purely human motives and problems (including the great danger he's facing from Voldemort, the difficulty of maintaining his cover as a spy or double agent or whatever he is, and the memories of his abused/neglected childhood and adolescence). I really see no need to add being a vampire to the mix. What I do want to know is more about his family. His father, in the tiny glimpse we have of him, looks like Voldemort's ideal DE. What happened to him? And what about Snape's mother? Did she love him? Why was she apparently unable to protect him? With the exception of Mrs. Black, we have yet to see a mother who doesn't love her son, even though some (Petunia and Narcissa) show that love through misdirected indulgence. Two mothers (Lily and Mrs. Crouch) have died to save their sons. So where does Snape's mother fit in? That's much more interesting to me than some half-human or nonhuman condition. Maybe there's a connection between her death and his joining--or leaving--the Death Eaters. Snape is interesting in his own right and in his relationships with other characters, particularly Harry (and maybe Draco in Book 6--How will Lucius Malfoy's arrest affect Snape's relationship with his Slytherin students?) We just don't need "cultural bias" in connection with Snape. It fits better with characters we know less and care less about. ("Care" is possibly the wrong word; even Snape-haters have an emotional investment in him and in their interpretation of him. Too bad we never see that kind of animosity directed at Voldemort, who I'm afraid is a disappointment as a character, though he has his moments in GoF.) > Carol wrote: > >> I just want to know why he joined the Death Eaters and why > he quit and what he's up to now. That's plenty, don't you think?<< > Pippin: > And you don't think being a vampire could have a teensy weensy > bit of something to do with that? I am not saying that being a > vampire is the sole explanation for his bad attitude or that it > gives him an excuse for joining the Death Eaters. That's too > simple. But suppose, as a young man, Snape believed that > wizarding society would never,ever accept or value him for what > he truly is, and that Voldemort and his followers would. > Tempting, I think. And there is plenty of relevance to the real > world. > Carol again: I certainly agree with you that as a (very) young man, Snape would have found it tempting to seek acceptance with a group that appreciated his knowledge of potions and the dark arts, and he may well have nursed a grudge Dumbledore for the treatment he had received at Hogwarts. I can see his older friend Lucius tempting him in that direction. And Voldemort would have been interested, too, in an unquestionably intelligent young man who (as Malfoy perhaps told him) had shown a gift for hexes at a very tender age--and a known contempt for Muggle-borns. I think he was essentially in the same position as Regulus Black, only more of a potential asset to the DEs than the weak and expendable Regulus. There is simply no need for vampirism, innate or acquired, in the psychological portrait of Severus Snape. Carol From editor at texas.net Tue Jan 6 00:28:11 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:28:11 -0000 Subject: List Culture: L.O.O.N. Elevation! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88128 ~~League Of Obsessive Nitpickers Official Memorandum~~ TO: Past President Joywitch M. Curmudgeon FROM: Amandageist RE: Membership of Eloise Madam Past President: I am sorry to disturb your retirement, but Anal P. Lardbottom cannot be found and I am uncertain who our current president is. I know you still have access to the magical trunk with the L.O.O.N. records. Two events recently came to pass on the main list which have resulted in Eloise's elevation to full L.O.O.N. membership. One, she supported a posting L.O.O.N. with effective and on-point canon support, thus maintaining the reputation of our singular group; and Two, Ali, L.O.O.N. member, has recognized her as a fellow and invited her in. These events, coupled with Eloise's demonstrated history of mastery of interpretation, hairsplitting, and nitpicking of canon, fully justify this elevation. Please place this memo in her file and send an owl with her L.O.O.N. badge posthaste. Yours, Amandageist P.S. -- I am sorry that the delivery of the children to your cave was disrupted; the UPS man misread the note on the crate which read "Leave if Addressee Not Home, These aren't Hazardous" as "Leave! If Addressee is Home! She Is Hazardous." This, combined with the fact that you chose that day to air your collections, resulted in his fleeing without depositing the crate. I will resend at earliest convenience. From DMCourt11 at cs.com Tue Jan 6 01:45:08 2004 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:45:08 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88129 > Kneasy wrote (with much snipping on my part): > Maybe JKR is laying down more moral markers than I see, but I > have difficulty translating Vampire!Snape into that category. He's > already presented facets of personality that cause any sentient > reader to pause for thought; would throwing fangs at midnight > into the mix help or hinder the readers understanding? > Hinder, IMO. It would excuse rather than explain - a cop out. > Snape is being driven by more than the instinctive behaviour > of a mythical beast. Or he'd better be; otherwise I want my > money back. Donna: Sometimes the simplest explinations are best, and take nothing away from a character's complexity; it adds to it, I think. Most of us seem to agree that Snape was abused at home, based on Harry's view of Snape's memories in OOP. Snape comes to Hogwarts as a child who is used to being abused and attracts the attention of bullies, who can sense a victim like a shark, or vampire :), smelling blood. He falls in with a group of Slytherins who admire Voldemort and aspires to join the DEs, sensing strength in numbers and a chance to get back at his abusers. However Snape realizes eventually that he's really just being victimized by another abuser, who alternates between charm and brutality to get what he wants from his followers. With this as his background is it any wonder that Snape acts the way he does towards students? For him anyone who is in a weaker position is fair game. Abused becoming the abuser is a common phenomenon, but what we don't know for sure is how much, if any of it, is an act to support Snape's reputation as a double or triple agent. If it is, it's probably an easy part for him to play! If it isn't, can he overcome his past and change? For me, this is complexity enough. Vampire Snape is overcomplicating things. Kneasy again: > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead > persuasion: > 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human. > 2. Only humans, not beasts, are allowed wands. (FBaWTFT) Donna: According to GOF they are Non-Wizard Part-Humans. As classified Non- Wizards I don't think they're allowed wands, though probably no self- respecting vampire would deign to use one, with their already considerable powers. I find it interesting that in the "What is a Beast" chapter of Fantastic Beasts, vampires are only mentioned once in a footnote. Centaurs removed themselves from being status in part because they refused to be in the same category with vampires and hags. Vampires do not attend either of the summits, although hags, who eat children, do. Were they not invited or did they choose not to attend? Can we petition the Lexicon to remove vampires from the beasts list? Kneasy again: > So I'm quite satisfied with the Snape that has developed over the > last 5 books. A complex, contradictory, bad-tempered, miserable > old git who can bear a grudge till it dies of old age. > Someone I can look up to and hope one day to emulate. > > "There was a Caesar; whence comes another?" > > Kneasy Here here! Donna From tiamik72 at aol.com Tue Jan 6 02:28:08 2004 From: tiamik72 at aol.com (katie_wible) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:28:08 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: <005b01c33d84$b98d79e0$2800a8c0@latitude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88130 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jade Rauenzahn" wrote: > --- Rachael wrote: > >Perhaps they have to actually > >*give* them clean clothes? > > That wouldn't work out. In CoS, Harry wrapped LV's diary in his dirty, nasty, bloody sock. Clearly not clean, yet it set Dobby free. > > My theory (and I've always wondered the whole laundry thing) is maybe wizards have some sort of automatic laundry cleaner. They just put their stuff in a basket, and wa-lah, it's clean. However, not all places have these - just the richer ones (the ones who would have house elves). > > -Jade > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Maybe, like scourgify, there is a simple spell that automatically cleans your clothes. The students don't have to buy many school robes, and if they had to wash them every few days, they would never have them back in time for morning classes. I have always wondered about trivial things like this, and I have an annoying question. Somebody mentioned before about how we have finally heard about somebody getting a shower in this book. Ok, we have that, but how do they blow dry thier hair? Many girls are said to have pretty hair, but how is it possible without all of the electronics. I mean, it's drafty in a castle, and people should not be walking around with wet heads. Do you guys think there is a simple spell for these kind of things? (I know this is picky, and many people will contradict me by saying alot of girls seem to have big and curly hairand blah blah, but still...) Katie (who would love to get a letter to Hogwarts that was delayed a few years, but would not know how to survive without hair blow dryers, muggle radio, and microwaves) From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Tue Jan 6 02:58:34 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (=?iso-8859-1?q?Vinnia?=) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:58:34 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040106025834.88293.qmail@web41208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88131 Katie wrote: > how do they blow dry thier hair? Many girls are said > to have pretty hair, but how is it possible without > all of the electronics. I mean, it's > drafty in a castle, and people should not be walking > around with wet > heads. Do you guys think there is a simple spell for > these kind of > things? (I know this is picky, and many people will > contradict me by > saying alot of girls seem to have big and curly > hairand blah blah, > but still...) Vinnia: Well, Hermione did a drying charm. --start quote-- OOP ch 21 The eye of the snake She pulled out her wand and gave it a complicated little wave so that hot air streamed out of the tip; she then pointed this at her robes, which began to steam as they dried out. --end quote I suppose you can alter the charm so it would not be too hot for hair. To curl hair: Wet your hair, roll(or braid), then perform the drying charm. Not as fast as curling tongs, but last longer. > Katie (who would love to get a letter to Hogwarts > that was delayed a > few years, but would not know how to survive without > hair blow > dryers, muggle radio, and microwaves) Yes, I'd love go to Hogwarts. Magic makes life a lot easier. Though I'm not sure if I can survive without my computer. And Katie...you would not need a microwave if you have a house elf ;) Vinnia http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 03:26:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:26:02 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88132 >Katie wrote: > Maybe, like scourgify, there is a simple spell that automatically > cleans your clothes. The students don't have to buy many school > robes, and if they had to wash them every few days, they would never > have them back in time for morning classes. I have always wondered > about trivial things like this, and I have an annoying question. > Somebody mentioned before about how we have finally heard about > somebody getting a shower in this book. Ok, we have that, but how do > they blow dry thier hair? Many girls are said to have pretty hair, > but how is it possible without all of the electronics. I mean, it's > drafty in a castle, and people should not be walking around with wet > heads. Do you guys think there is a simple spell for these kind of > things? (I know this is picky, and many people will contradict me by > saying alot of girls seem to have big and curly hairand blah blah, > but still...) > > Katie (who would love to get a letter to Hogwarts that was delayed a > few years, but would not know how to survive without hair blow > dryers, muggle radio, and microwaves) Carol: IIRC, Hermione finds large robes in the laundry for Harry and Ron when they trasform themselves into Crabbe and Goyle in SS/PS, which probably means that the House Elves do the laundry at Hogwarts. (Young snape may have tried to do his own and washed white underwear with black robes, hence the not so chic grey. As for hair, Hermione straightens and smooths her hair magically before the Yule Ball in GoF but doesn't usually bother with it. And doesn't she turn her wand into a blow dryer of sorts at some point to dry either her hair or her robes? Or maybe it's wet socks. I seem to recall that it happened after a walk in the snow to Hagrid's hut and back. Carol, who apologizes for not looking up the page numbers. I can find the first two passages easily enough if anyone wants them From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 04:01:44 2004 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:01:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040106040144.47372.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88133 justcarol67 wrote: The "murder" for "curse" error still stands, though. akh: I'm vaguely remembering reading an interview wherein JKR stated she had originally planned to kill off Moody, but then decided to keep him alive, since she liked the character so well. I'm inclined to go with the theorists who conjecture that the UK and US versions were edited simultaneously, and the original manuscript intended to dispense with Mad Eye. Scholastic just hasn't seen fit to adjust the language; I suppose they thought we could interpret the scene to be LV's intent against his victim, even if it is meant to be Moody, although that's not the actual outcome. akh, who's now thinking she needs to buy ALL the UK version of HP (having bought OOP in both UK and US versions). --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Intensefancyblue at aol.com Tue Jan 6 02:30:28 2004 From: Intensefancyblue at aol.com (Intensefancyblue at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 21:30:28 EST Subject: Snape a complex man and even more complex professor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88134 Hello, I'm new to this group and I realize this may sound like I'm tossing in my two cents but I think Snape is actually a more complex man then we we give him credit for, as well as a survivor. For instance, he wants his students (who he seems to bully) but may be testing their mettle. After all, being a witch or wizard isn't for the faint of heart. While he seems to pick on Gryffindors endlessly he may actually be spurring them on to prove how they can be just as tough as he is. The Slytherin students he favors seem to do absymally. (Just like the shell game, you're seeing one result and getting another.) In another example he is teaching Harry who he seems to openly despise, Occulmancy, and in turn shares his worst memory. An accident? I think not. He is attempting a rapport with his student and he could just as easily picked Malfoy to teach it to. He chose Harry. Why? He knows Harry will need the skill one day. His complexity doesn't stop there, he is easily the most hated teacher, but he also cares a great deal about his students. When the basilisk was attacking the students he was among those concerned. He also first suspected Quirrell when the Stone was being threatened. Snape is not a beast, nor a bully. He is simply a person who's had a hard life made some wrong choices and found a way to redeem himself. There's more but it would take too long to write. Sincerely, Intensefancyblue [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From handyman_321 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 03:15:38 2004 From: handyman_321 at yahoo.com (Handy (really!!!)) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:15:38 -0000 Subject: "brew fortune, bottle fame, put a stopper in death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "strawberryshaunie" wrote: > hmm I always saw it as "stopper" meaning cork...like put liquid death > in a bottle, not "stop" (prevent) death. Any ideas as to what Snape > meant?(sorry for the short post....) I took it to mean that he could make a potion that would make a person seem dead, but not really. Unfortunately I don't see this helping Serius any. From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 03:00:51 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:00:51 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88136 bboy_mn: > From the US quoted text, I can not determine who will be murdered, and why Voldemort thinks no one will notice. > > The usual suspects- > > -Bertha Jorkins (already dead) > -Frank Bryce (soon to be dead ) > -Barty Crouch Jr ( certainly he will live) > -Barty Crouch Sr (but they didn't kill him, they kept him alive > but at home ) > -the Real Mad-Eye Moody (well, they didn't kill him either. ) > -Dumbledore (Didn't see any early-on plot to kill or curse him) > -Harry Potter (well, not Harry because his death comes at the end > of the plan, not the beginning, and his death couldn't be a quiet > unnoticed death) On this, am I mistaken or was Crouch Sr. killed in the Forbidden Forest and his body covered in the invisibility cloak. That counts as a death. Although the UK edition does make more sense. Andrew From wren0517 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 01:23:21 2004 From: wren0517 at yahoo.com (wren0517) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:23:21 -0000 Subject: First Editions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88137 Hello. I don't know if this has been discussed before (I've searched!), but I had a question about first editions. I know that the UK editions are more valuable than the US ones, but what about the Canadian ones? I've read that they contain the same text as the UK ones, but they are published by a different company. Anyone know? Thanks! Wren From filo_roll at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 04:03:04 2004 From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:03:04 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88138 {Tanya} > > Now Werewolves. ie Lupin. Let's ask this. > If he accidentally bit someone in his human form, what would > happen, would that person then have the curse or not? filoroll: Why would Lupin (human) bite someone? Unless he was really hungry. From flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 04:21:53 2004 From: flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com (Diana Walter) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:21:53 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88139 > Carol: > IIRC, Hermione finds large robes in the laundry for Harry and Ron when > they trasform themselves into Crabbe and Goyle in SS/PS, which > probably means that the House Elves do the laundry at Hogwarts. Me: Makes me wonder why Hermione was so surprised to learn in GoF that there were house elves at Hogwarts. Who did she think did the laundry? Were there just none around at the time she stole the robes? Is it possible that she saw one and just didn't realize what it was, not having met Dobby (although one would think she would figure it out soon enough)? Where is the laundry anyway, and how did Hermione find it? --daw, because Diana was taken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 05:44:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:44:54 -0000 Subject: "Bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death" Was:brew fortune, bottle fame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88140 > "strawberryshaunie" wrote: > > hmm I always saw it as "stopper" meaning cork...like put liquid > death > > in a bottle, not "stop" (prevent) death. Any ideas as to what Snape > > meant?(sorry for the short post....) > wrote: > I took it to mean that he could make a potion that would make a > person seem dead, but not really. Unfortunately I don't see this > helping Serius any. Carol: I corrected the quote in the subject line since it keeps getting edited out of the posts. When I first read the words, I took them to be poetic hyperbole, part of the authoritative and intimidating pose Snape adopts with his students. While I still think he has a flair for the dramatic (sweeping out of a room, for example) and that he wants his students to respect his authority and fear his anger, I wouldn't be surprised if he could do everything he claims and more--a very intelligent man and highly gifted wizard, our Snape, full of surprises. As for the meaning of "stopper death," I originally took "stopper" as meaning to insert a figurative cork in a figurative bottle containing death, a metaphorical way of saying "put a stop to death." However, "brew" and "bottle" seem to be used literally, so maybe "stopper" is literal, too, meaning that strawberryshaunie is right, and it's just another way of saying that he can bottle death--or trap death in a stoppered bottle so it can't escape unless he releases it, which seems a bit more impressive. No doubt his shelves and Lucius Malfoy's secret room contain many varieties of bottled death, from ordinary poisons to deadly plagues that, if released, could kill hundreds or thousands of people. If "stopper death" did relate to immortality and Snape's abilities were known to his Death Eater acquaintances, wouldn't Voldemort would want Snape alive and in his service, not killed for leaving the Death Eaters? (I know that others have argued that the one who must be killed is someone else, but I don't think so. Karkaroff is the coward and Crouch/Moody the faithful servant. There's no one else it could be.) Carol, who assures our new member that most of the members of this list share her view that Snape is a complex and fascinating character From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 05:48:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:48:28 -0000 Subject: GOF: US Murder vs UK Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > bboy_mn: > > From the US quoted text, I can not determine who will be murdered, > and why Voldemort thinks no one will notice. > > > > The usual suspects- > > > > -Bertha Jorkins (already dead) > > -Frank Bryce (soon to be dead ) > > -Barty Crouch Jr ( certainly he will live) > > -Barty Crouch Sr (but they didn't kill him, they kept him alive > > but at home ) > > -the Real Mad-Eye Moody (well, they didn't kill him either. ) > > -Dumbledore (Didn't see any early-on plot to kill or curse him) > > -Harry Potter (well, not Harry because his death comes at the end > > of the plan, not the beginning, and his death couldn't be a quiet > > unnoticed death) > > > On this, am I mistaken or was Crouch Sr. killed in the > Forbidden Forest and his body covered in the invisibility cloak. > That counts as a death. Although the UK edition does make more sense. > > Andrew He was eventually murdered by his own son, but that wasn't part of the original plan and didn't need to be done before Crouch Jr. could get to Hogwarts and initiate the part of the plan involving Harry. He did, however, need to be cursed, as did the real Alastor Moody, which is where the confusion comes in. Carol Carol From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Jan 6 08:49:25 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:49:25 EST Subject: house elves and laundry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88142 Rachael wrote: > House Elves can only be freed by getting clothes > from their master > (s), so what about laundry? > > Carol: > > IIRC, Hermione finds large robes in the laundry for Harry and Ron > when > > they trasform themselves into Crabbe and Goyle in SS/PS, which > > probably means that the House Elves do the laundry at Hogwarts. Eloise: In addition, there is a suggestion( though no more than that) that they are allowed to take laundry to be processed. Crouch/Moody explains how he summoned Dobby to the staff room to collect robes for cleaning. Now this isn't fool-proof evidence as we know that Dobby is already free, however we do not know that Crouch/Moody knew that (at least before he appeared in clothes), only that he was fond of Harry. Possibly they are allowed to touch clothes that have not been directly handed (or thrown!) at them. Possibly intent has a part in it. Lucius didn't *intend* to free Dobby, but neither was he handing him the sock with the intent that it be washed. He was flinging it away from him, giving it away. daw (because Diana was taken): > Makes me wonder why Hermione was so surprised to learn in GoF > that there were house elves at Hogwarts. Who did she think did the > laundry? Were there just none around at the time she stole the robes? > Is it possible that she saw one and just didn't realize what it was, > not having met Dobby (although one would think she would figure it > out soon enough)? Where is the laundry anyway, and how did Hermione > find it? Eloise: I am really rather shocked that Hermione *hadn't* twigged the existence of house elves at Hogwarts, or there position in wizarding society properly before, given her encyclopaedic knowledge of the wizarding world. But in her defence, a) they are probably largely ignored in the wizarding literature available to her, so that she would have actively to research them, rather than just coming across them in the course of her general reading. b) We are told (conveniently) that it is the mark of the good house elf that they are *not* seen (so I wouldn't expect her to see one in the laundry). c) Ron misleads us in CoS by telling us that they are associated with the homes of old, wealthy families (no implication that they are associated with institutions, no matter how prestigious). d) How did *we* think that all these things were done? Food appears by magic at the feasts. I guess that I always assumed there was more magic involved and less labour. In addition, there was no reason to assume that there weren't paid school *servants* in the kitchens and laundry, rather than enlaved house elves. As for the whereabouts of the laundry, I have no more idea than you, but I wouldn't be surprised if its location were well known to students, enabling them to collect clean robes and clothes as required. Students evidently aren't able to summon house elves at will (or else Hermione would have beeen aware of them), so they may well *need* to be able to take filthy Quidditch robes or collect emergency clean ones from the laundry. Given spells like scourgify and reparo, though, one wonders why a laundry is needed at all. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 6 09:51:15 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:51:15 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Sorry to snip Kneasy's great post, almost all of which I agree with. I > just have one complaint. Why call him "old Snape" when he's still in > his thirties, the same age as Remus Lupin, whom JKR refers to at least > twice as "young"? He may be "old" from the perspective of his > students, but he certainly isn't from mine! > In the UK 'old', as in ''good old whoever" has little or nothing to do with chronological age, although the person referred to is invariably an adult. It has a meaning closer to 'unchanging' or 'steadfast'. It is usually a sign of approval (unless it is used ironically). Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 6 12:46:01 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:46:01 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Kneasy: > > Most readers and watchers of film and TV have very strong > > images of what a vampire is and how a vampire behaves. > >Does Snape fit the profile? Again, I don't believe so. > Pippin: > Then it's odd that so many people have indepently made the > connection. > Kneasy: Have they? I don't believe so. Yes, there are a fair few who now ransack the canon for evidence that seems at best to be debatable, at worst non-existant, but IIRC it didn't seem to be all that popular an idea when first mooted. In what ways do Snape's actions match those typically exhibited by stereotypical vampires? Except in a few marginal and unimportant ways (appearance, office in a dungeon). They don't, IMO. I'd put in the same ideas category as: Crookshanks is someone in Animagus form Mrs Norris is someone in Animagus form Sirius will come back from the dead DD was the wasp in the examination room The Longbottoms are being drugged by someone All of which have attracted comment and support at one time or another but for which there seems to be a paucity of evidence. Interesting speculations, of course, but it would be nice if there were some canon to back them up. And that's really the crux. In my own mind I classify ideas bounced around the site thus: Theories have at least *some* canon support - "We know that... therefore .." Speculation takes the form of "I wonder if...?" or "Wouldn't it be interesting if...?" or "Could this be explained if...?" Speculation can be fun, but I won't take it seriously until some incontrovertable evidence turns up. I cheerfully admit to playing the same game occasionally. Throw out an idea and see what the response is. Sometimes someone points out that there is supporting evidence, sometimes not. Quite often I get mails questioning my grasp on reality; so what? It all adds to the fun. The members have an unalienable right to disagree with me, or with anyone. It'd be a boring site if we didn't. Pippin: (on blood flavoured lollipops) > Well, I've got to go with Hermione here. She said they were for > vampires, and on matters of fact she has never yet been wrong. > Kneasy: A fact or an assumption? Usually when Hermione states a fact she quotes her source, when she makes an assumption or supposition she gets it wrong as often as anyone else (nature of Lockhart, Kreachur, Hogwart Elves wish to be free, bewitched broom, etc) > Kneasy: > > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the > undead persuasion: > > 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human. > > It does??? FBAWTFT states explicitly in the footnote on page xiii > that vampires are creatures which have "being" status. This tells > us two things. They are considered intelligent and they are alive. > Not undead spirits, whatever Muggle legend may relate. Since > as "non-wizarding" people they would presumably be forbidden > to use wands, that would be an powerful motive for Snape to > keep his vampire status secret, would it not? > Kneasy: Whoops! Mea culpa. Cock-up by Kneasy. Yes, they are beings, not beasts, but they are still forbidden wands. Could he hide his status from the staff and pupils at Hogwarts? If he lived in the wider WW I'll concede it might just be possible, but not at a school surrounded by experienced wizards and pupils willing to think the worst of him. I doubt he'd last a term. Pippin: > I don't really see why being a vampire would be too much--not > from Rowling. She is the one who put two monsters in the > castle, two hidden animagi, etc, etc. I wouldn't discount child > abuse as an explanation for Snape's temperament, but does it > have to be the only reason? > Kneasy: Nope. (I *speculate* that the child abuse is not what it seems.) JKR could shove any being, beast or whatnot into her plots, but I'm naive enough to think she plays fair and the clues are always there - even if you skate over them first time around. Especially with individual characters - particularly continuing characters that are key to the plot. On this I can't see any clues even if I look for them specifically. Maybe I'm blind. Maybe Snape is a literal monster, not just a metaphorical one. But if Snape is a vampire, all sorts of questions surface. When and how did he become a vampire? Would the DE supremacists accept him as an equal to a pure- blood wizard? (I suspect not, but Malfoy acts otherwise.) Who does he feed on? When? (He'd need fresh blood - often) Does DD know? (How could he justify this one to the Ministry?) Why are there no victims of vampirism in canon ? (Both Quirrell and Hagrid have met them, but no bites anywhere.) Why is he not repelled by garlic? Why is he not affected by daylight? Why does he cast a reflection in the Foe-glass? How can he cross running water? (Bathroom overflows in CoS) Why no fangs? Why doesn't he sleep during the day? Have the Aurors in the Order been blind for 14 years? Bloody strange vampire, IMO, not to exhibit vampire traits. An even stranger vampire to do things no vampire ought. If JKR unveils him as a vampire, I'll feel cheated. Kneasy From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 13:37:16 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:37:16 -0000 Subject: Blood Lollipops (wasWhy ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88145 Not so long ago, Kneasy speculated that the blood flavoured lollipops in Hogsmead may have also been a treat for hags, given their propensity to eat children and raw liver. Unfortunately, that was snipped, and I am forced to paraphrase. (Asking Kneasy's indulgence) Pippin replied: > Pippin: (on blood flavoured lollipops) > > Well, I've got to go with Hermione here. She said they were for > > vampires, and on matters of fact she has never yet been wrong. > > To which Kneasy countered: > Kneasy: > A fact or an assumption? Usually when Hermione states a fact she > quotes her source, when she makes an assumption or supposition > she gets it wrong as often as anyone else (nature of Lockhart, > Kreachur, Hogwart Elves wish to be free, bewitched broom, etc) Now Ginger joins in: I like the hag theory, although I would think that vampires would be the primary target group. I must point out that Hermione said "...They're for vampires, I expect." (PoA US paperback p. 197) suggesting uncertainty. So they may even be a novelty item classified under "unusual tastes". I once got a tequila lolly complete with the worm, but I never ate it. Certainly an unusual taste. It's too bad Hermione didn't look up the ingredients. Had they actually been made of real blood, we may have our answer. OTOH, had they been made with artificial flavours, we'd be back to wondering if vampires in the JKR world eat human food, artificial though it may be. What I am now wondering is if British slang for lollypop is sucker, as it is here in the US. If that is the case, maybe JKR figured that we'd heard enough about vampires that we'd expect to see a bloodsucker and enjoyed a play on words. Ginger, who doesn't think that Snape is a vampire, but has full confidence that JKR could pull it off should she so choose. From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 6 14:02:43 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood in Paper (was:Umbridge a DE?/Trelawney a future Voldemort Target?) References: Message-ID: <001201c3d45d$c129b950$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 88146 Bewitched by HP wrote: Interesting theory...did anyone else feel "cheated" by Umbridge getting off so easily? True, she was a bit touched in the head after her escapade with the centaurs, but to be allowed to just run off without punishment?! I wanted to reach into the OoP book and wring her neck every time she tortured Harry with the "blood lines". How evil! There has to be more to her than just a staunch supporter of Fudge and the MoM. She rivals up there with Voldemort. Wonder if she'll show up in the last 2 books, or if she's gone for good? Joj writes: I was very disappointed and quite surprised, that she was allowed to slink off with no consequences for her actions. That leaves her free to cause all sorts of problems for Harry and the others. I can't believe JKR would never mention her again, and let her completly get away with what she did in OotP. I think we will definitly see Dolores Jane Umbridge again. Joj ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prlrocks at aol.com Tue Jan 6 15:18:24 2004 From: prlrocks at aol.com (prlrocks) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:18:24 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88147 Not as bright as you all and not nearly as good with words so I hope this doesn't sound completely stupid. :) Arianna said: > > This is part of the hat's song in OoP > "though condemned I am to split you > still I worry that it's wrong, > though I must fulfill my duty > and must quarter every year" > It sounds as if it is dividing the new students fairly close to > evenly. > > Wouldn't it be cool if the big red herring is that the Sorting Hat > just *randomly* splits the children into houses? me (prlrocks): I found the first line, "though condemned I am to split you" very interesting. Not in the sense of the hat splitting them into different groups, but in the sense the hat may be splitting each individual person up in relation to their own characteristics. Most agree that a good deal of the characters don't fit completely into their said houses. Maybe the hat realizes this and sees choosing one part of someone's personality over another as wrong. People, I do think, are bound to play up characters of their house after all. They fit in better that way. Harry is a case in point. He seems ashamed of anything that may make him seem Slytherin so instead of just being himself, he seems to hide parts of himself away. He tries to be the best Gryfindor he can be and tries to 'kill' parts of him that are Slytherin. He does this out of fear of being too much like Voldemort, I believe. In doing this there may be some benefits, but there are also a lot of down sides. One alone being doubt in himself when Slytherin characters show up (COS)and another perhaps is him not using all his strengths (Harry not thinking to use Parseltongue in COS). I doubt Harry would be alone in this. prlrocks From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 15:41:14 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:41:14 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88148 > Me: > Makes me wonder why Hermione was so surprised to learn in GoF > that there were house elves at Hogwarts. Who did she think did the > laundry? Were there just none around at the time she stole the robes? > I've wondered the same thing. Wouldn't this be mentioned in the book she always quotes, "Hogwarts: A History"? If so, why was she surprised? If it weren't mentioned, why not? Could it have something to do with the way they became slaves to the wizarding world, given that they are powerful beings themselves? Just wondering... Julie From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Jan 6 16:18:57 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:18:57 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88149 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > > Me: > > Makes me wonder why Hermione was so surprised to learn in GoF > > that there were house elves at Hogwarts. Who did she think did the > > laundry? Were there just none around at the time she stole the > robes? > > > > I've wondered the same thing. Wouldn't this be mentioned in the > book she always quotes, "Hogwarts: A History"? If so, why was she > surprised? If it weren't mentioned, why not? Could it have > something to do with the way they became slaves to the wizarding > world, given that they are powerful beings themselves? Just > wondering... > Apparently not... "'House-elves!' said Hermione, her eyes flashing. 'Not once, in over a thousand pages, does Hogwarts, A History mention that we are all colluding in the oppression of a hundred slaves!'" -Arcum From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 6 16:53:43 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:53:43 -0000 Subject: Blood Lollipops (wasWhy ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > I like the hag theory, although I would think that vampires would be > the primary target group. I must point out that Hermione > said "...They're for vampires, I expect." (PoA US paperback p. 197) > suggesting uncertainty. So they may even be a novelty item > classified under "unusual tastes". I once got a tequila lolly > complete with the worm, but I never ate it. Certainly an unusual > taste. > Kneasy: Unusual tastes? Sounds as if I should investigate further. Nothing quite like those for bucking up a jaded palate. I even have a long association with bad taste. That can be satisfying too. Ginger: > It's too bad Hermione didn't look up the ingredients. Had they > actually been made of real blood, we may have our answer. OTOH, had > they been made with artificial flavours, we'd be back to wondering if > vampires in the JKR world eat human food, artificial though it may be. > Kneasy: The mind boggles. Just think of the possible labels. Blood Lollipops: Manufacturered by Ann Rice Enterprises Contains: Blood (Landsteiner Grps O,A,B,AB); anticoagulant (sod. cit.); plasma; glucose; dextrose;antioxidants E332, E334; permitted colouring; NaCl; Fibrinogen; unmodified haemostatics. May contain antibodies, blood bourne diseases, alcohol. Guaranteed drawn from Garlic free population. Product of more than one body. Best before: Dawn. Ginger: > What I am now wondering is if British slang for lollypop is sucker, > as it is here in the US. If that is the case, maybe JKR figured that > we'd heard enough about vampires that we'd expect to see a > bloodsucker and enjoyed a play on words. > Kneasy: Not normally, though most of us do understand the usage, thanks to films and TV. (Though the older among of us are still desperately trying to purge Telly Savalas from our tortured minds. Unfortunately, the description of Grawp is all too reminiscent of that leering visage.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 6 17:01:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:01:56 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > The thought of a vampire, with a wand, plus the ability to perform theImperius curse would be an interesting development at Hogwarts, don'tyou think? Since vampires find nourishment from fresh blood *only*, the staff and pupils would present as the equivalent of the local supermarket.Even DD isn't that easy-going with the personal weaknesses of others. > Canon for the fresh blood only, please? It's very odd to me, considering that there is very little reliable information about vampires from inside the Potterverse, and none at all from Real Life (so far as I know), that people have formed such strongly held opinions about them. Why is that, do you suppose? However, from a literary point of view, I think I see what you are getting at. The big mystery about Snape is why he's such a monster, so for the answer to be, "because he *is* a monster, silly" would be a cheat. Either being a vampire doesn't explain anything about his behavior, in which case it's unnecessary, or else it explains too much, and undermines the poignancy in the hidden similarities between Snape and Harry which we (and they) are slowly discovering. Is that it? However, vampires are *not* fabulous monsters in terms of the Potterverse itself. To be considered Beings they have to restrain their appetite for humans, at least we've been told that Acromantulas can't be considered Beings because they won't. Hermione is at least not alarmed by the notion that a vampire might be shopping at Honeydukes. As for Dumbledore not allowing potential man-eaters anywhere near children in the school, we've already seen them on security duty posted outside Gryffindor Tower (see FBAWTFT under Trolls.) It makes no more sense to avoid all trolls or vampires because some of them are killers than it does to avoid all humans for that reason. And even in the wizarding world, I venture, a human child is in far more danger of being killed by another human than by a vampire or a hag. The challenge for Harry, should he ever discover what Snape really is, will be whether to discard his developing understanding of Snape for the facile explanation, "well, what can you expect from a vampire?" Doing what is right rather than what is easy, in other words. And what effect does this facile explanation have on Snape himself? Theories of inborn inferiority may be all too easily believed by their targets. Snape may have diminished expectations of himself because his culture has diminished expectations of him. Still, one might think that Snape would prefer to blame his upbringing rather than his nature. But what if he knew no reason to? What if the "child-abuse" explanation for Snape's behavior is valid, but neither Snape himself nor any one else in the WW has any idea of it? Remember, the idea that emotional abuse can cause lasting harm to normal individuals is a modern one, only widely accepted in very recent times. Even an enlightened wizard like Dumbledore might be unaware of it. That would certainly shed some light on his cavalier abandonment of Harry to the Dursleys, not to mention his tolerance for Snape's classroom manner. But that's another post. Pippin From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 6 17:03:32 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:03:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88152 Many people who theorise about the Harry Potter universe and who write fan fictions seem to assume that students who get sorted into Slytherin must necessarily be purebloods; likewise they assume that Snape must be a pureblood, too. But can they be? It seems Slytherin House would have to be the smallest of all houses - as far as we know from the books, there are less than ten pureblood families left in all. I would guess that most wizarding families have Muggles somewhere in their ancestry, and that being against 'Mudbloods' does not necessarily preclude one's being a pureblood oneself. In the days of Salazar Slytherin it might still have been possible to select Slytherins on blood basis only, but surely it cannot be the case anymore now? From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Tue Jan 6 18:51:28 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:51:28 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88153 Well, he's not a vamp because he doesn't look like Mae West, even when he (his boggart avatar, better said) wears Mrs Longbottom's dress and hat. Iris, back from a lecture on Bu?uel and surrealism. I apologize for this OT and crank post, but with a title like that,and after all that I heard this afternoon, I couldn't resist the temptation of an easy joke... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 19:03:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:03:33 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Sorry to snip Kneasy's great post, almost all of which I agree with. I > > just have one complaint. Why call him "old Snape" when he's still in > > his thirties, the same age as Remus Lupin, whom JKR refers to at least > > twice as "young"? He may be "old" from the perspective of his > > students, but he certainly isn't from mine! > > > > In the UK 'old', as in ''good old whoever" has little or nothing to do > with chronological age, although the person referred to is invariably > an adult. It has a meaning closer to 'unchanging' or 'steadfast'. > > It is usually a sign of approval (unless it is used ironically). > > Kneasy As in, "Thanks, old chap"? Carol From t.forch at mail.dk Tue Jan 6 19:11:24 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:11:24 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106195713.021c2360@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88155 At 17:03 06-01-04 +0000, you wrote: >Many people who theorise about the Harry Potter universe and who >write fan fictions seem to assume that students who get sorted into >Slytherin must necessarily be purebloods; likewise they assume that >Snape must be a pureblood, too. But can they be? It seems Slytherin >House would have to be the smallest of all houses - as far as we know >from the books, there are less than ten pureblood families left in >all. I would guess that most wizarding families have Muggles >somewhere in their ancestry, and that being against 'Mudbloods' does >not necessarily preclude one's being a pureblood oneself. In the days >of Salazar Slytherin it might still have been possible to select >Slytherins on blood basis only, but surely it cannot be the case >anymore now? A: There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. B: In Harry's year alone there are at least 11 students /known/ to have two magical parents. Of these we know with certainty that Ernie Macmillan and Ron Weasley are pure-bloods, and it seems to me a safe bet that most, if not all, of Vincent Crabbe, Gregory Goyle, Draco Malfoy and Theodore Nott are pure-bloods as well. The ten pure-blood families must either be quite extended or there are more than that, in order to produce that many pure-blood children in a single year. Bellatrix's reaction to Harry exposing Voldemort as a half-blood might (with at least some justification) be taken to imply that the Death Eaters did not know of this, which again, IMO, would imply that the Death Eaters themselves are all pure-blood (those for whom we know their 'blood' are indeed pure-blood; Rabastan, Rodolphus and Bellatrix Lestrange, Regulus Black and Lucius Malfoy). From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 19:19:11 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:19:11 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: Many people who theorise about the Harry Potter universe and who write fan fictions seem to assume that students who get sorted into Slytherin must necessarily be purebloods... minor snips... In the days of Salazar Slytherin it might still have been possible to select Slytherins on blood basis only, but surely it cannot be the case anymore now? But being a pure-blood fanatic or an anti-Mudblood isn't the only quality that Salazar Slytherin used to choose his students: there is also cunning and ambition (two of the more negative house qualities), and resoursefullness and determination (two of the more positive house qualities that, unfortunatley we haven't seen too much of). IMHO, every house posesses qualities that can be both positive attributes and negative ones. Take Gryffindor for example: bravery is of course a highly valuable quality, one to be admired even, but take bravery too far and you end up with recklessness. In fact, I think that it can be argued that the houses represent qualites that each individual should have, even in small amounts, to make up a balanced person. For example, Hufflepuffs are hardworking, but what good is hard work without the ambition (from Slytherin) to apply it or intellegence (from Ravenclaw) to focus it? Conversely, what good is bravery without intellegence behind it, or ambition not backed up by hardwork? I think that the Sorting Hat had Harry right all along, especially when it told him that he would be hard to place because he does posess such a variety of qualities: a good mind (as evidenced by his solving of the sphinx's riddle in GoF), resourcefullness (as we see when he successfully navigates the third Triwizard Task), loyalty (especially to Dumbledore and his friends). But his overwhelming quality is bravery. So while clear he belongs in Gryffindor, I think he also represents a balanced person, who displays the qualities of all the houses well. Meri (with many apologies for straying off topic) From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 19:30:49 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:30:49 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106195713.021c2360@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88157 --- Troels Forchhammer wrote: > B: In Harry's year alone there are at least 11 students /known/ to > have two magical parents. Of these we know with certainty that > Ernie Macmillan and Ron Weasley are pure-bloods, and it seems > to me a safe bet that most, if not all, of Vincent Crabbe, > Gregory Goyle, Draco Malfoy and Theodore Nott are pure-bloods > as well. Constance Vigilance (me): I KNOW I remember reading that either Crabbe or Goyle (I can't remember which) is described as looking "part troll". I've been looking through my books but I can't find it. As you all know from my recent posts, trolls have suddenly become of interest to me, so I am speculating that this Slytherin student, whoever he is, is somewhat less than pureblooded, having some troll in his bloodline. Constance Vigilance, Quirrell Lives! (In Durmstrang, which is in Scandinavia. So there.) From suzchiles at msn.com Tue Jan 6 19:37:05 2004 From: suzchiles at msn.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:37:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: house elves and laundry References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88158 Julie said: > I've wondered the same thing. Wouldn't this be mentioned in the > book she always quotes, "Hogwarts: A History"? If so, why was she > surprised? If it weren't mentioned, why not? Could it have > something to do with the way they became slaves to the wizarding > world, given that they are powerful beings themselves? Just > wondering... >From GoF, UK Adult paperback edition, p.209: 'It's all in "Hogwarts: A History". Though, of course, that book's not entirely reliable. "A Revised History of Hogwarts" would be a more accurate title. Or "A Highly Biased and Selective History of Hogwarts, Which Glosses Over the Nastier Aspects of the School".' 'What are you talking on about?' said Ron, though Harry thought he knew what was coming. 'House-elves!' said Hermione loudly and proving Harry right. 'Not once, in over a thousand pages, does "Hogwarts: A History" mention that we are all colluding in the oppresion of a hundred slaves!' Suzanne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 19:37:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:37:15 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88159 "drjuliehoward" wrote: Makes me wonder why Hermione was so surprised to learn in GoF that there were house elves at Hogwarts. Who did she think did the laundry? Were there just none around at the time she stole the robes? Someone (attribution snipped in earlier post) responded: I've wondered the same thing. Wouldn't this be mentioned in the book she always quotes, "Hogwarts: A History"? If so, why was she surprised? If it weren't mentioned, why not? Could it have something to do with the way they became slaves to the wizarding world, given that they are powerful beings themselves? Just wondering... Arcum wrote: > Apparently not... > > "'House-elves!' said Hermione, her eyes flashing. 'Not once, > in over a thousand pages, does Hogwarts, A History mention that we > are all colluding in the oppression of a hundred slaves!'" Hermione wouldn't know about House Elves before coming to Hogwarts before she's a Muggle-born and probably assumed (as we did if we thought about it) that the laundry was done by magic. (Actually, it probably is--just not by the Wizards themselves.) And the author of "Hogwarts, A History" is not so much "colluding in . . . oppression" as simply taking for granted a thousand-year-old tradition, much the way we Muggles take electricity for granted. In describing a friend's home, we wouldn't say, "The house had electric light and a washing machine." It would never occur to a reader that it didn't. Carol From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 20:15:52 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:15:52 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Delight Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88160 Happy New Year to one and all! I dedicate this filk to Amy Zucker It is a parody of George and Ira Gershwin's "Embraceable You." It is purely a bit of outrageous fluff. It is not at all meant to advocate wizard/ovine slash. SCENE: Albus Dumbledore's brother Aberforth provides us with a hint at why he might have gotten into trouble in his youth. ABERFORTH: Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe Embrace me, you irreplaceable ewe. Just one look at ewes My heart grew tipsy in me Ewes and ewes alone Bring out the gypsy in me. I love all the many charms about ewes; Above all, I want my arms around ewes. Don't you be a naughty lamby Come to Abby, come to Abby do My sweet embraceable ewe. Haggridd From t.forch at mail.dk Tue Jan 6 20:34:25 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:34:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106195713.021c2360@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106212753.021cce50@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88161 At 19:30 06-01-04 +0000, Susan Miller wrote: >Constance Vigilance (me): I KNOW I remember reading that either >Crabbe or Goyle (I can't remember which) is described as >looking "part troll". Marcus Flint, PS-11 'Quidditch' "Harry thought Flint looked as if he had some troll blood in him" And in CoS, Millicent Bulstrode (who is known to have only one magical parent) reminds Harry of a hag (presumably) Malfoy strutted over, smirking. Behind him walked a Slytherin girl who reminded Harry of a picture he'd seen in /Holidays with Hags/. She was large and square and her heavy jaw jutted aggressively. Hermione gave her a weak smile that she did not return. (CoS-11 'The Duelling Club') I've been wondering about these two myself - wondering if Harry's suspicions about Flint (and the implication that Bulstrode has some hag blood in her) are correct. /Troels From bumbledor at charter.net Tue Jan 6 14:51:26 2004 From: bumbledor at charter.net (Bumbledor) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:51:26 -0500 Subject: house elves and laundry References: Message-ID: <008e01c3d464$8fd75d60$6601a8c0@mac> No: HPFGUIDX 88162 ----- Original Message ----- Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: house elves and laundry > Eloise: > In addition, there is a suggestion( though no more than that) > that they are allowed to take laundry to be processed. > Possibly they are allowed to touch clothes that have not been > directly handed (or thrown!) at them. Just one problem with the above sentence. In book 5, wasn't Hermione making hats and leaving them lying around, hidden? If house elves are allowed to touch clothes that are not directly handed to them, then why would Dobby tell Harry that the other elves won't clean Gryffindor common room, due to all the hidden hats and stuff? "Bumbledor" From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 20:24:09 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:24:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88163 >Constance Vigilance (me): I KNOW I remember reading that either >Crabbe or Goyle (I can't remember which) is described as >looking "part troll". I've been looking through my books but I can't >find it. I believe that it's Marcus Flint (Slytherin quidditch captain) who's described as looking 'part troll', actually. In the movies this has been interpreted to mean he has really bad-looking teeth. ;) My question on this conversation string is, how is it known that Millicent Bulstrode is a half-blood? There's no mention one way or another in the books about her parentage (although we know she must be partly of wizard blood since she's in Slytherin). I know there's that photograph of J.K. Rowling's notebook with its cryptic symbols, but when looking over the notes on that in a previous post to this email list, it was noted that the symbols next to Millicent's name looked different from the ones next to (among others) Seamus Finnegan, who we know is a 'Half & Half'. I'm a relative newcomer to this discussion list. Can anyone point me in the direction of where this parentage theory is discussed, or recap it for me here? Many thanks! -- Julie Stevenson _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 6 18:32:13 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:32:13 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old either!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88164 Kneasy wrote: > It (the word "old") has a meaning closer to "unchanging" > or "steadfast". A good example of this is in "Julius Caesar", where Mark Antony remarks "Old Cassius still!" after a characteristically furious outburst from Cassius (who is, incidentally, a very Snape-like character. Sylvia (who hopes this is not too OT but feels it illustrates a point ) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Jan 6 21:35:40 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:35:40 EST Subject: house elves and laundry Message-ID: <12f.38e436c9.2d2c842c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88165 > > Eloise: > > In addition, there is a suggestion( though no more than that) > > that they are allowed to take laundry to be processed. > > > Possibly they are allowed to touch clothes that have not been > > directly handed (or thrown!) at them. > Bumbledor: > Just one problem with the above sentence. In book 5, wasn't Hermione making > hats and leaving them lying around, hidden? If house elves are allowed to > touch clothes that are not directly handed to them, then why would Dobby tell > Harry that the other elves won't clean Gryffindor common room, due to all > the hidden hats and stuff? Excellent observation and in consequence, I can only suggest that my suggestion which followed the above which you quoted is the correct one: that there has to be the *intent* of giving in order for the breaking of the house-elf's enslavement to take place. Hermione was leaving the hats as *gifts*. Lucius intentionally gave away the sock, even if it was not his intention to release Dobby. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 22:04:55 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:04:55 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: <008e01c3d464$8fd75d60$6601a8c0@mac> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88166 --- Bumbledor wrote: > In book 5, wasn't Hermione making > hats and leaving them lying around, hidden? If house elves are allowed to > touch clothes that are not directly handed to them, then why would Dobby tell > Harry that the other elves won't clean Gryffindor common room, due to all > the hidden hats and stuff? Constance Vigilance (me): I always understood that the refusal was due to the elves' feeling that the hats were insulting. I didn't see that canon tells us that the hats would actually have any effect on their status. There have been discussions on this list before wondering how someone who did not own an elf could cause a release. I think we just don't know at this point. Having said that and moving into meta-thinking, I think that the hats will have an effect in a future book, else why have them? I think there will be a grand event that will cause the elves to choose freedom for themselves. The disturbing thing to me is that since Dumbledore, as master of Hogwarts, seems to hold their bonds, the elves would only need to be freed if they intended to violate Dumbledore's wishes. I have been concerned that the elves will make use of Hermione's hats to enlist in the anti-Dumbledore army and fight *against* our heroes. Constance Vigilance, Quirrell Lives! From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Jan 6 22:05:21 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:05:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: house elves and laundry Message-ID: <001F79F4.37260205.4B073798@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88167 In a message dated 1/6/2004 9:51:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, bumbledor at charter.net writes: > Just one problem with the above sentence. In book 5, wasn't Hermione making > hats and leaving them lying around, hidden? If house elves are allowed to > touch clothes that are not directly handed to them, then why would Dobby tell > Harry that the other elves won't clean Gryffindor common > room, due to all > the hidden hats and stuff? The elves don't clean the tower because of the message behind the clothes: "She still does not care for clothes, Harry Potter. Nor do the other house-elves. None of them will clean Gryffindor tower anymore, not with the hats and socks hidden anywhere, they finds them insulting sir." -- Dobby, OoP page 385 The elves *could* touch them, they choose not to because Hermione is insulting them (like offering a knarl milk I suppose). Oryomai From carmenharms at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 22:13:08 2004 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:13:08 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88168 --- "filo_roll" wrote: > > {Tanya} > > > > Now Werewolves. ie Lupin. Let's ask this. > > If he accidentally bit someone in his human form, what would > > happen, would that person then have the curse or not? > > > filoroll: > Why would Lupin (human) bite someone? Unless he was really hungry. Now comes snazzzybird to say -- Ohhhhh, you wouldn't need to ask that if you'd read some of the fanfic out there! Particularly of the slashy persuasion. They've got our Remus giving passionate nips and bites to various and sundry canon characters, all while he's in human form of course. I've not seen a fanfic in which such a bite gave his lover lycanthropy... but the question did occur to me. --snazzzybird, who loves a good fanfic From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 6 22:36:00 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:36:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c3d4a5$76e976d0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88169 >I think he'll end up with Luna Lovegood. She's a character that just >sees Harry as Harry and not as "The Boy Who Lived". The fact that >she seems quite uninterested in his fame might just be what Harry >needs...(I have NEVER believed in Harry/Hermione, they're just >friends.) Rai-chan replies: Maybe you're right. I quite agree with you about Hermione and I think she'll be paired up with Ron since it's pretty obvious how jealous Ron is to every guy Hermione's having crush with. Staring with Gilderoy Lockhart. I mean Harry didn't object that Hermione got a picture of him under her pillows in CoS but Ron did. It was also Ron who tried "unsuccesfully" to defend Hermione when Malfoy called her mudblood (in CoS also). And in GoF, Ron, who's a fan of Krum, suddenly said snickering remarks about him when Hermione went out with Krum (and Harry said it's fine so I guess he really doesn't see her as more than friend). And Hermione also showed a bit of jealousy from time to time. Lastly, they always fight. I mean the universal rule is that people who always fight ends up together. That's my opinion though...No offense to H/H fans Helen replies: Ah! But Luna also sees Ron as Ron, and not just "Harry's friend". She seems quite taken with him, in fact. Wants to hold his owl, would have gone to the ball with him, stares at him, calls him 'Ronald', hums 'Weasley is Our King' under her breath... Not that I object to Ron/Hermione or Harry/Luna, mind, but I disagree that R/Hr is the only possibility for Ron or Hermione. Teenagers are fickle and they change their minds. Today Ron finds Hermione a pain in the arse, tomorrow he's buying her perfume for Christmas. Today Ginny likes Michael Corner, tomorrow she's dating Dean Thomas. Today Luna is a nutter, tomorrow Ron is asking her out. Today Hermione is 'just a friend' to Harry, tomorrow... you get the picture. I think considering ANY ship amongst the younger generation as TWU WUV is a bit premature, considering their ages. No offense to the OTP'ers... of any ship Helen From tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 22:03:53 2004 From: tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com (Ali) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:03:53 -0500 Subject: The Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88170 Prlrocks: > I found the first line, "though condemned I am to split you" very > interesting. Not in the sense of the hat splitting them into different > groups, but in the sense the hat may be splitting each individual > person up in relation to their own characteristics. Most agree that a > good deal of the characters don't fit completely into their said > houses. Maybe the hat realizes this and sees choosing one part of > someone's personality over another as wrong. People, I do think, are > bound to play up characters of their house after all. They fit in > better that way. While it is true that the kids might be inclined to play up to their house traits to fit it, three things occur to me: 1) Across all 7 years of their education, I doubt that everyone will continue to suppress all their traits for the sole sake of fitting in. One can only hope that when they are near their coming of age, they have the maturity to realize that if your friends cannot accept you for who you are, they're not your friends. I know it's an inane comment to make, but hey, it's true, even if we're talking about the WW. 2) Harry, in my opinion, seems to not completely fit the profile you've drawn. While he does suppress some of himself, I've been lead to believe that this was due to him wanting to make himself not at all similar to Volde mort and has less to do with just not being Slytherin-esque or fitting in. On top of that, Harry was very young at the time. There aren't too many young persons who would think of "using all his strengths" in a time of crisis. In addition, doubt in oneself is very characteristic of adolescent and pre-adolescent persons. 3) Even given that the first two are not applicable, we are lead to believe that the sorting hat sorts all different types of people into each house provided something within them fit the house's profile. Surely there are at least 2 people of similar characteractics to be friends with each other? I doubt that the sorting hat would purposefully sort a student into a house that he would absolutely not fit into unless he suppresses some of his innate characteristics. Wouldn't that defeat the idea of the house system? ~Ali From t.forch at mail.dk Tue Jan 6 23:48:23 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:48:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040107004306.02161ef0@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88171 At 15:24 06-01-04 -0500, you wrote: >My question on this conversation string is, how is it known that Millicent >Bulstrode is a half-blood? The symbol for a one-magical-parent (mp1) student is a star while the symbol for a two-magical-parents (mp2) student is a star within a circle. Vincent Crabbe, Gregory Goyle and Lavender Brown are all marked with the mp2 symbol. Seamus Finnigan was originally marked with this symbol as well, but the circle surrounding his star has been crossed out. Millicent Bulstrode has the mp1 mark - the star without a circle. It is unfortunately not available at the moment, but once I get it up again, there's a fairly good screencap of this, along with an explanation at Hogwarts Library: /Troels From lliannanshe_ensueno at verizon.net Wed Jan 7 00:17:20 2004 From: lliannanshe_ensueno at verizon.net (Lliannanshe) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:17:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" wrote: >Constance Vigilance wrote: I KNOW I remember reading that either Crabbe or Goyle (I can't remember which) is described as looking "part troll". I've been looking through my books but I can't find it. As you all know from my recent posts, trolls have suddenly become of interest to me, so I am speculating that this Slytherin student, whoever he is, is somewhat less than pureblooded, having some troll in his bloodline. Lliannanshe: If you have "Fantastic Beasts" you could be referring to the written in joke (presumably written by Harry). Next to the description of the troll is a drawn in picture of a troll and "My name is Gregory Goyle and I smell" From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Jan 7 03:12:05 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:12:05 -0000 Subject: FILK: Lord Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88173 Lord Harry (OOP, Chap. 26) To the tune of Rosemary, from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Sorry, No MIDI Dedicated to Constance Vigilance THE SCENE: As HARRY falls asleep, he is immediately plunged into a dream/vision/Vulcan mind-meld of himself as The Dark Lord. He discovers himself alone, in the robes of Voldemort, in what is obviously a five-star Dark Wizard palace. HARRY is simultaneously fascinated and repelled by his new incarnation. The song opens with a majestic flourish, including the three- note "Rosemary" (i.e., "Lord Harry") motif, which is recurs throughout (its appearances are indicated below) HARRY: Suddenly there's dark magic And I cannot be named (The Lord Harry motif rings out majestically from the orchestra) Lord Harry! (The Lord Harry motif rings out) Lord Harry! There's a title of Dark Lord Wizard That is now mine to claim (The Lord Harry motif) Lord Harry! (The Lord Harry motif. parital) Lord Harry! Resolution Is not near I sent Commandos . (The orchestra quotes several bars of Franz Liszt's Totentanz for Piano & Orchestra )* ..But get no spheres. As for this Rookwood, my DE servant Bid him give me acclaim (The Lord Harry motif) ROOKWOOD (enter, with great fear, falling immediately to his knees) Lord Harry! (The Lord Harry motif, softly) Lord Harry! There is terrible magic from the Harry-Who- Can't-Be-Named! (spoken) Master, I crave your pardon HARRY (spoken): Rookwood, something hideous thing has happened. Oh, don't you know it? Don't you know it? (music) Seemingly months were wasted But it's not you I blame (The Lord Harry motif, softly) ROOKWOOD (spoken): Avery doesn't know a thing, my Lord .. (The Lord Harry motif, softly) HARRY: (music) Avery! (spoken) Avery told me that Bode would be able to remove it. ROOKWOOD (spoken): Bode could never have taken it, Master . HARRY (spoken): Rookwood, I shall need your help. I shall need all the information you can give me. (The Lord Harry motif, with renewed amplification) ROOKWOOD (spoken, with great relief): You shall have it, Lord! You'll have it! You'll have it! (music) Shockingly there is mercy >From He-Who-Can't-Be-Named (The Lord Harry motif) Lord Harry! (The Lord Harry motif) HARRY: Avery! My intention Is to curse With a Crucio The orchestra again quotes several bars of Franz Liszt's Totentanz*, as Avery fearfully enters, and is immediately Crucio'd by HARRY HARRY & ROOKWOOD (gazing contemptuously on Avery's tormented form): He'll be made worse. HARRY: As for those Pests and those lousy felons They'll get more of the same. (The Lord Harry motif, elaborated and augmented) HARRY/ROOKWOOD (exultantly): Avery! Avery! / Lord Harry! Lord Harry! (The Lord Harry motif, elaborated and augmented) There is terrible magic from the Harry-Who- Can't-Be-Named! (The orchestra blazes to a triumphal climax. At the final chord, HARRY suddenly awakens back in Gryffindor, screams, and falls out of his bed) HARRY (screaming): EEEWWWWWWWWW! RON: What? - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm * The original musical includes several bars from Edvard Grieg's Piano Concerto in a minor, Op. 16, to somewhat hyperbolically italicize J. Pierpont's sudden realization of his love for the secretary Rosemary. To properly Dark Wizard-ize this section, I replaced Greig with another popular work from the 19th-Century repertoire for piano and orchestra, Franz Liszt's set of variations on the notorious Dies Irae theme titled Totentanz (Dance of Death). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 03:45:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:45:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106195713.021c2360@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88174 Someone (identity snipped from post) asked: > >Many people who theorise about the Harry Potter universe and who > >write fan fictions seem to assume that students who get sorted into > >Slytherin must necessarily be purebloods; likewise they assume that > >Snape must be a pureblood, too. But can they be? It seems Slytherin > >House would have to be the smallest of all houses - as far as we know > >from the books, there are less than ten pureblood families left in > >all. I would guess that most wizarding families have Muggles > >somewhere in their ancestry, and that being against 'Mudbloods' does > >not necessarily preclude one's being a pureblood oneself. In the days > >of Salazar Slytherin it might still have been possible to select > >Slytherins on blood basis only, but surely it cannot be the case > >anymore now? > Troels answered: There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. > Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. Tracey Davis? I can't remember encountering the name. Where is it mentioned and how do you know that he/she is a "mudblood"? And can you tell me where Millicent Bulstrode's parentage is mentioned? All I remember about her is that her cat was the source of an unpleasant experience for Hermione in the polyjuice incident in CoS. It seems odd that Pansy Parkinson would tolerate Millicent's presence in her dormitory she knew she was a "mudblood." Carol From artcase at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 04:11:08 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 04:11:08 -0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88175 IMO lycanthropy is transmitted saliva to blood. Remus would have to break the skin, but in the same vein, it would be simple to transmit the disease through, ahem... well we're adults here..., sex. So, that said, Remus must be a lonely man. There are probable very few females with lycanthropy, and fewer that a good guy would want to hang with, or that aren't so neurotic they have issues. Art. > Now comes snazzzybird to say -- > Ohhhhh, you wouldn't need to ask that if you'd read some of the > fanfic out there! Particularly of the slashy persuasion. They've > got our Remus giving passionate nips and bites to various and sundry > canon characters, all while he's in human form of course. I've not > seen a fanfic in which such a bite gave his lover lycanthropy... but > the question did occur to me. > > --snazzzybird, who loves a good fanfic From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 01:46:08 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 01:46:08 -0000 Subject: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups In-Reply-To: <001a01c3d4a5$76e976d0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: > Helen replies: > > Ah! But Luna also sees Ron as Ron, and not just "Harry's friend". She > seems quite taken with him, in fact. Wants to hold his owl, would have > gone to the ball with him, stares at him, calls him 'Ronald', hums > 'Weasley is Our King' under her breath... > > Not that I object to Ron/Hermione or Harry/Luna, mind, but I disagree > that R/Hr is the only possibility for Ron or Hermione. Teenagers are > fickle and they change their minds. Today Ron finds Hermione a pain in > the arse, tomorrow he's buying her perfume for Christmas. Today Ginny > likes Michael Corner, tomorrow she's dating Dean Thomas. Today Luna is a > nutter, tomorrow Ron is asking her out. Today Hermione is 'just a > friend' to Harry, tomorrow... you get the picture. I think considering > ANY ship amongst the younger generation as TWU WUV is a bit premature, > considering their ages. > > No offense to the OTP'ers... of any ship > > Helen Andrew adds: I totally agree. With a slight change. As Harry, Ron, Hermoine, and friends, approach the later years of Hogwarts, aka 6th and 7th years, they will be maturing enough to realize who they truly want to be with. We could argue over these points until the 6th book is published, but the vicious love polygon will be nearly impossible to predict until JKR enravels yet another of her mysteries. Luny does seem quite taken with Ron; far more than with Harry. In OOTP, when Ron first meets Luna, Ron tells a joke. "He(Ron) lowered his voice to Goyle's low grunt and, screwing up his face in a look of pained concentration, mimed writing in midair. 'I...must...not...look...like...a...baboon's...backside....' Everyone laughed, but nobody laughed harder than Luna Lovegood. She let out a scream of mirth that cauesed Hedqig to wake up and flap her wings indignantly and Crookshanks to leap up into the luggage rack, hissing. She laughed so hard that her magazine slipped out of her grasp, slid down her legs, and onto the floor. 'That was funny!' Her prominent eyes swam with tears as she gasped for breath, staring at Ron." This sounds like a typical girl trying to make a good impression on a guy she obviously is into. These is also an instance during the practices of DA that Luna acts the same toward Ron, but I can not seem to find it. Although I am a proud supporter of Ron and Luna; and Harry and Hermoine, I find it hard to predict any relationships in the book, if not impossible. Andrew From filo_roll at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 03:23:55 2004 From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:23:55 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > But if Snape is a vampire, all sorts of questions surface. > > When and how did he become a vampire? Filoroll: Snape got bitten while holidaying with his family in Transylvania. His parents started arguing so he wondered off into the forest to find most potente potion ingredients. The vampire nearly drained Snape completely but he managed to find his wand and repel the bloodsucker. > Would the DE supremacists accept him as an equal to a pure- > blood wizard? (I suspect not, but Malfoy acts otherwise.) They don't know. Ignorance is bliss. > Who does he feed on? When? (He'd need fresh blood - often) Either he drinks a potion which deadens his urges for blood or he's like Angel, he goes to the blood bank. Or, Snape's like Louis from "Interview With the Vampire", he catches rats and drinks animal blood. This is the reason why he wonders around so much at night. > Does DD know? (How could he justify this one to the Ministry?) DD probably knows and because he's such a non-discriminating guy he doesn't mind as long as Snape doesn't feed on his students and DD's not stupid enough to tell the Ministry. > Why are there no victims of vampirism in canon ? (Both > Quirrell and Hagrid have met them, but no bites anywhere.) Just because JKR hasn't written about it doesn't mean it won't be in canon later. Vampires live in remote forests (this is canon, I think it was Hermione who said so) and not many humans go there except for those diehard wizards looking for most potente potion ingredients. > Why is he not repelled by garlic? Only some vampires are repelled by garlic. The normal vampires on Buffy are repelled, I think, but Anne Rice's vampires are not affected. > Why is he not affected by daylight? Not all vampires burn to death in daylight. In "The Last Vampire" the vampiress could walk around in daylight. Also in "Queen of the Damned" the Queen and Lestat could walk around in the sun unharmed. > Why does he cast a reflection in the Foe-glass? This is not a necessary trait. Does he cast a reflection in the foe glass? I thought the foe glass was supposed to show your enemies? > How can he cross running water? (Bathroom overflows in CoS) I don't think it's a must have feature of a vampire that they can't dip themselves in water. Wasn't it the wicked witch of the compass point in Wizard of Oz that shrivelled up when water got thrown on her? I think the reason why Snape is greasy is because either he's a greasy person or because he only takes a shower when it is absolutely necessary and not everyday because he's got better things to do than wash himself. > Why no fangs? He hids them, like in Anne Rice's books, the vampires hold their faces in such a way as to disguise the fangs. > Why doesn't he sleep during the day? He has to teach his incompetent students. Who says he doesn't take a bat nap? Refer to the daylight question. > Have the Aurors in the Order been blind for 14 years? Probably. They don't know everything, like who the rat was. And Snape isn't about to tell them about his very private personal matter. > Bloody strange vampire, IMO, not to exhibit vampire traits. > An even stranger vampire to do things no vampire ought. > If JKR unveils him as a vampire, I'll feel cheated. > > Kneasy The traits you mentioned do not neccessary point to the fact that Snape isn't a vampire. JKR is probably devising her own vampires with special JKR traits. filoroll From filo_roll at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 03:52:08 2004 From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:52:08 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: as far as we know > from the books, there are less than ten pureblood families left in > all filoroll: No wonder the kids turn out bad, there's too much in-mixing within a family. Must be due to genetic defects. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 06:07:35 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:07:35 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88179 Constance Vigilance wrote: > Having said that and moving into meta-thinking, I think that the hats will have an effect in a future book, else why have them? I think there will be a grand event that will cause the elves to choose freedom for themselves. The disturbing thing to me is that since Dumbledore, as master of Hogwarts, seems to hold their bonds, the elves would only need to be freed if they intended to violate Dumbledore's wishes. I have been concerned that the elves will make use of Hermione's hats to enlist in the anti-Dumbledore army and fight *against* our heroes. vmonte wrote: I could see Hermione leading the elves in the war for Dumbledore; although she is going to need all the help she can get. I don't think she is going about SPEW the right way at all. Dobby mentions in chapter 10 of COS, U.S. version: "But mostly, sir, life hasimproved for my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not- Be-Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord's power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir..." I think the kids will be able to rally the elves onto their side if they go about it from an elfs point-of-view. If Hogwarts is destroyed along with the OOTP (as well as many other wizard families), the elves will be out of a job. I don't think they will want to lose their jobs and go back to work for the nasty DE wizards. I wonder if Luna will join SPEW and help Hermione? She seems to be very insightful about things (although a bit wacky). She may be a seer or have skill in reading Runes (a class Hermione is now taking in school). Hermione and Luna may at some point work as a team. They are Polar opposites and it may be useful to combine their talents. vmonte From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 06:32:46 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:32:46 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88180 Re: Slytherin Purebloods? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > Many people who theorise ... assume that students ... sorted into > Slytherin must necessarily be purebloods; .... ... > > It seems Slytherin House would have to be the smallest of all houses > - as far as we know from the books, there are less than ten > pureblood families left in all. bboy_mn: I assume you are basing this on the fact that there appear to be 10 Slytherin's in Draco' class year and none of them appear to have the same name. I don't take you to me that there are less than 10 absolutely, but that there are less than 10 using Draco's class as a model. Correct? > severelysigune: > > I would guess that most wizarding families have Muggles somewhere in > their ancestry, and that being against 'Mudbloods' does not > necessarily preclude one's being a pureblood oneself. bboy_mn: Sorry, I'm not quite clear about what you mean. Of course, I've had a long day and my brain isn't exactly operating at full speed. I'm guessing you are saying, that being against mudbloods does not necessarily 'include' you as being a pureblood. In other words, you don't have to be a pureblood to be against muggles. I can see people with a trace of muggle here and there somewhere in their family tree still being against intermarriage and supporting the principles of pureblood. So did I get it right or am I completely lost? Let's not forget that the greatest promoter of the pureblood principles himself is indeed not a pureblood. Voldemort is a half-blood, but that is through no fault of his own, and half-blood or not, he can still profess the principles of maintaining and promoting the superiority of pure blood. > severelysigune: > > In the days of Salazar Slytherin it might still have been possible > to select Slytherins on blood basis only, but surely it cannot be > the case anymore now? bboy_mn: In a past discussion of the nature of Salazar Slytherin, some wise person pointed out that we have no real proof or for that matter, good evidence that Slytherin was some horrible person who wanted to kill every mudblood and mixed-blood he met. About all we have in the way of direct statements about the situation in which Slytherin left Hogwarts was that Slytherin wanted to be more selective in who was admitted, and that he didn't trust muggles. But we must keep in mind that this was in the middle ages, perhaps even pre-middle ages, when witches and wizards were greatly feared and heavily persecuted. That is certainly justifiable reason not to trust muggles. All the horrible projections of Slytherin philosophy are put forth by modern people who are using Slytherin as a way of promoting their own agenda in the same way that Christian have promoted their murderous agendas in the past, and the same way that extremest Muslims promote their own self-serving murderous agendas today. It is standard operating procedure for dictators and oppressors to prey on the extremes of people's belief systems in order to manipulate them into falling in line with the dictator agenda. To address your actual point, I too believe that today, mixed bloods are sorted into Slytherin. Although any mixed blood sorted into that house would do best to keep their head down and stay off people's radar screens. True Slytherin believed in keeping magic in pure magic families, and he had a logical and justifiable reason for that at that point in history, but it is the characteristics of cunning, and ruthless ambition that get you sorted into Slytherin house. I think if you have that, you have enough. Just a thought. bboy_mn From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 7 07:55:57 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:55:57 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Troels: > There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. > > Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. > > Carol: > Tracey Davis? I can't remember encountering the name. Where is it > mentioned and how do you know that he/she is a "mudblood"? And can you > tell me where Millicent Bulstrode's parentage is mentioned? > It seems odd > that Pansy Parkinson would tolerate Millicent's presence in her > dormitory she knew she was a "mudblood." Geoff: Isn't there some confusion here? Troels lists three names as "half- bloods" and you're picking up on two of them as "mudbloods". They can't be both.... From jakejensen at hotmail.com Wed Jan 7 07:57:52 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:57:52 -0000 Subject: More Snape (might) be a vampire canon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88182 If you don't think Snape is a vampire, that's fine. I am not trying to convince anyone. This is for those who groove with the theory. In book one, Hagrid becomes agitated when Harry, Ron, and Hermione argue that Snape was trying to hurt Harry during a quidditch game. "I'm tellin' yeh, yer wrong!" said Hagrid hotly. "I don'know why Harry's broom acted like that, but Snape wouldn' try an' kill a student!" (SS, p. 193). This scene always made me scratch my head. I wondered why Hagrid would get all hot and bothered over this. If snape is a vampire, then Hagrid might be defending Snape because he feels that the same could be said of him (and it will be later on in the books). Def. canon showing that Snape is a vampire? Nope. Another scene that might have a second dimension? Yep. Jake From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 06:12:59 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:12:59 -0000 Subject: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88183 Andrew wrote: Although I am a proud supporter of Ron and Luna; and Harry and Hermoine, I find it hard to predict any relationships in the book, if not impossible. vmonte writes: I don't really see Harry in the end with anybody. But if I were to pick which pairs should go together I would make: Harry with Ginny, Hermione with Ron, and Luna with Neville. vmonte From fkilc at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 08:04:38 2004 From: fkilc at yahoo.com (fkilc) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:04:38 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > We're told very plainly in books one and two that Petunia is a Muggle. > Also JKR has made the point directly in an interview: > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/0200-scholastic-chat.htm > > Carol All the interview says is that wizards can be born to muggles.... but to me at least, it brings up the following question: At what point do Squibs stop being Squibs and become muggles ? If Petunia is the daughter of two Squibs, does she remain a squib, or does she become a muggle because she can't (or doesn't want to) use magic ? Also, at what point does a mudblood stop being a mudblood and becomes a pureblood ? If your great-great-great-great parent was a mudblood, but then the descendants always married into wizarding families, at what point does your blood become "pure" enough ? --francois From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 7 09:01:09 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:01:09 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88185 Filoroll wrote: Why no fangs? He hides them, like in Anne Rice's books, the vampires hold their faces in such a way as to disguise the fangs. Berit replies: I have a hard time imagining Snape being able to hide his fangs if he's got any, considering how often he sneers and bares his teeth at everything in general and Harry in particular :-)) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Jan 7 10:07:17 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 05:07:17 EST Subject: More Snape (might) be a vampire canon Message-ID: <1aa.1e9bf236.2d2d3455@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88186 Jake: > In book one, Hagrid becomes agitated when Harry, Ron, and Hermione > argue that Snape was trying to hurt Harry during a quidditch game. > > "I'm tellin' yeh, yer wrong!" said Hagrid hotly. "I don'know why > Harry's broom acted like that, but Snape wouldn' try an' kill a > student!" (SS, p. 193). > > This scene always made me scratch my head. I wondered why Hagrid > would get all hot and bothered over this. If snape is a vampire, > then Hagrid might be defending Snape because he feels that the same > could be said of him (and it will be later on in the books). Def. > canon showing that Snape is a vampire? Nope. Another scene that > might have a second dimension? Yep. Eloise: Hm. Could be. OTOH, it may be an indicator of his trusting Dumbledore's judgement. He knows that Dumbledore trusts Snape enough to have made him one of the guardians of the Philosopher's Stone and he gets very hot under the collar if Dumbledore is criticised. My own interpretation of this scene has always been that it is Hagrid protesting too much because he knows of the enmity between Snape and James. He can't really bring himself to believe that Snape would hurt Harry, yet faced with the evidence it gives him a nasty jolt. He tells us that only powerful Dark Magic can interfere with a broom like that; Snape is therefore a prime candidate with possible motive. It parallels the earlier scene when Harry and Ron tell Hagrid about their first Potions lesson: ' "But he seemed really to *hate* me." "Rubbish!" said Hagrid, "Why should he?" Yet Harry couldn't help thinking that Hagrid didn't quite meet his eyes when he said that.' (PS/SS, 185, UK PB) Hagrid knows all too well that there is reason for Snape to hate Harry (although I don't think he knows the half of it), so he will always protest loudly at the idea out of loyalty to Dumbledore and his staff. And what good would he think it would do to tell Harry anyway at that stage? He has no idea at this point what a remarkable wizard Harry will turn out to be, nor, I suspect, that he has a destiny to fulfil. The particular outburst you quote also comes at the end of the conversation, when the trio have revealed what they have found out so far about Fluffy guarding something. Hagrid is under a lot of pressure here and losing it rather in his desperation to keep their noses out of business which he thinks does not concern them. On a literary level, JKR uses Hagrid to develop our early questions and doubts about Snape. The second (chronologically earlier) quote above is JKR's first hint that there is some kind of link between them and objective confirmation (through Hagrid's obviously false denial) that he does indeed hate Harry. The discussion of the Quidditch match incident with the addition of Hagrid's ourbursts adds to our mounting doubts about Snape. JKR is playing with us, presenting both sides of the argument, bringing the conundrum out into the open. But the argument *for* Snape is cleverly presented by the less convincing character. Hagrid's reactions also, of course provide a foil for Hermione to explain to us just what really *was* happening to Harry's broom, only, of course, she was mistaking the counter curse for the jinx. Like Agatha Christie, JKR presents us with all the evidence but with a magician's sleight of hand misdirects our interpretation of it. On the general subject of whether Snape is a vampire or not... Well, I don't think he is, but I wouldn't put anything past JKR. I'm not at all sure it's valid to argue that he is or isn't based on various characteristics such as the ability to tolerate sunlight, not be repelled by garlic and such. There seem to be different traditions about these things, many of which are literary (or derived from film) anyway and JKR, whilst drawing on mythology and past literary traditions is also quite capable of altering or creating characteristics of beasts and beings to suit her own purposes. I am also not convinced by the arguments for his being or not being a vampire based on whether or not he already has enough emotional baggage or whether it is a theme that would enhance the message of the books or not, although these discussions have an interest of their own. It's quite valid to argue the literary merits of why he *should* or *shouldn't* be a vampire, but JKR is the only one who knows and we can't *predict* what she will do based on which we would find the most satisfying. I have the same problem with SHIPping. As far as I can see, JKR is setting us up with Ron/Hermione - but that doesn't mean it will happen, in fact it could just as easily be an indicator that it *won't* happen. I guess that's my feeling about the vampirism: she's dropped so many little hints into the text that if I *had* to predict, I'd say that no, I think she's playing with us. But I'm quite prepared to be wrong. On reading Dracula (a vampire who did go abroad in daylight), I have to say that the character who came most to mind was Voldemort, with the red eyes, the mind connection thing with Mina Harker which is very similar to the way Harry witnesses Voldemort's experiences through his dreams (and additionally the realisation of both Dracula and Voldemort that this was happening), the fact that Voldemort, in vapour form and possibly earlier was arguably "undead", having gone through transformations which seem to have made him less than human yet immortal and the whole idea of "death eating" whatever that is precisely, but which has overtones of preying on the deaths of others as Dracula sucked the life from his victims. ~Eloise Who, on the subject of "old", was yesterday listening to an adaptation of Noel Streatfield's The Saplings (a war time novel) in which the father of the family habitially addressed his young daughter as "old girl". [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 7 10:35:08 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:35:08 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88187 Erm - I may be straying even further off topic, but I thought you made an interesting point, Meri. Meri wrote: >snip snip snip> << IMHO, every house posesses qualities that can be both positive attributes and negative ones. Take Gryffindor for example: bravery is of course a highly valuable quality, one to be admired even, but take bravery too far and you end up with recklessness. In fact, I think that it can be argued that the houses represent qualites that each individual should have, even in small amounts, to make up a balanced person.>> This is clearly becoming an ever more important theme in the books: Dumbledore seems to be one of the very few wizards who actually realise that the rivalry between the Houses plays into the hands of Voldemort - it sows discord. And as you say, they all represent valuable qualities that need combining in order to really work. If the magical community is to be harmonious, there is to be a balance between the Houses and the qualities they represent. What bothers me, though, is that even the staff at Hogwarts are liable to increase the rivalry between Houses, and time and time again we witness "All against Slytherin and Slytherin against all". A witch like McGonagall, who seems so competent and clever, seems incapable to overcome her prejudice against Slytherin. Quidditch, for that matter, is a horror - the competition is past sport, and everyone sets high store by it. I think Snape has quite an heroic task to perform, trying to support his House against so much enmity; though he does seem up to it, seeing the Slytherin results in both the Quidditch and House Cup competitions prior to Harry's arrival. In any case, as is clear from the PS passage where Snape decides to referee a Quidditch match in order to prevent Quirrell from playing more tricks, all of his colleagues thinks he is just trying to be nasty to Gryfindor - after having worekd with him for more than ten years they still don't trust him at all!! In fact, the whole Hogwarts system turns on competition. The Houses. The House Cup. The Quidditch Cup. It might be useful if Dumbledore just started a School Reform instead of forcing rivalry on his students and then asking them to be nice and friendly with each other. Well, I guess a really wise person should be able to overcome these obstacles, but not all witches and wizards can be expected to become Dumbledores, can they? Yours severely, Sigune From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 7 10:46:52 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:46:52 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "filo_roll" wrote: (Heavy snip) > > > Bloody strange vampire, IMO, not to exhibit vampire traits. > > An even stranger vampire to do things no vampire ought. > > If JKR unveils him as a vampire, I'll feel cheated. > > > > Kneasy > filoroll: > The traits you mentioned do not neccessary point to the fact that > Snape isn't a vampire. JKR is probably devising her own vampires > with special JKR traits. > Kneasy: Tut, tut! Come, now! Let's have a modicum of sportsmanship. Play the game. I ask for evidence and you write fanfic! Not in PR are you? I could counter by claiming that Snape really is Neville's grandmother and that the Boggart he fears represents reality. (Where does Snape go in the holidays, anyway?) OK, JKR can do what she likes, but it would take some brass neck to present a vampire with none of the characteristics famed in song and story without some previous hint that in the WW accepted folklore is being so drastically re-written. I call that cheating. It would be equivalent revealing that Flitwick is a rather short giant or that Petunia is a heavily disguised Veela. It's just not on. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 7 13:10:00 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:10:00 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Canon for the fresh blood only, please? It's very odd to me, > considering that there is very little reliable information about > vampires from inside the Potterverse, and none at all from Real > Life (so far as I know), that people have formed such strongly > held opinions about them. Why is that, do you suppose? > Kneasy: Real life and vampires are a contradiction in terms, metaphorically and actually. Agreed? What we do have is the fictional canon accepted in the wider world of fantasy and folklore. This is what I meant by readers having a strong image of what a vampire is and does. We all know and share the image presented when we think "Giant", "Goblin", "Centaur" or "Elf". The same goes for "Vampire". (Though JKR did pull a bit of a fast one with her Elves, since they correspond to a mostly forgettable sub-group - Brownies. But they are congruent with those in folklore; it's just the situation she puts them in which gets a fresh twist.) So my argument is that if a writer uses named creatures that are well known in fantasy, then convention demands that they can be recognised as such or pointers given that the convention is not being followed in this particular instance. Neither is evident in HP. Pippin: > However, from a literary point of view, I think I see what you are > getting at. The big mystery about Snape is why he's such a > monster, so for the answer to be, "because he *is* a monster, > silly" would be a cheat. Either being a vampire doesn't explain > anything about his behavior, in which case it's unnecessary, or > else it explains too much, and undermines the poignancy in the > hidden similarities between Snape and Harry which we (and > they) are slowly discovering. Is that it? > Kneasy: We diverge here. I'm not much concerned about how Snape got to be such a miserable old git as "what is he up to, and why?" I have a healthy scepticism for the psychological dissection of characters to determine what makes them tick. It nearly always ends up begging the question. If (a big "if" in my opinion), Snape suffered 'mental abuse' (a meaningless phrase; the definition by necessity being so elastic as to encompass anything from being mildly admonished to being in fear of vicious assault, depending as it does on the perceptions of the recipient or the observer), it would mean little anyway. One would wonder why the 'trauma' suffered by Harry, Neville or Lupin had such differing outcomes. I see it as an easy out for lazy writers. I don't want excuses, I want solid motivation. Pippin: > The challenge for Harry, should he ever discover what Snape > really is, will be whether to discard his developing understanding > of Snape for the facile explanation, "well, what can you expect > from a vampire?" Doing what is right rather than what is easy, in > other words. > Kneasy: We obviously have very different ideas of what the HP series is about. I see it as a fantasy adventure; the concept of a text on the emotional resolution of personal interactions leading to psychic health leaves me cold. I'll leave that to those who are more likely to comment on the diffraction of light rather than glory in a magnificent sunset. Pippin: > Still, one might think that Snape would prefer to blame his > upbringing rather than his nature. But what if he knew no reason > to? What if the "child-abuse" explanation for Snape's behavior is > valid, but neither Snape himself nor any one else in the WW has > any idea of it? > > Remember, the idea that emotional abuse can cause lasting > harm to normal individuals is a modern one, only widely > accepted in very recent times. Even an enlightened wizard like > Dumbledore might be unaware of it. That would certainly shed > some light on his cavalier abandonment of Harry to the > Dursleys, not to mention his tolerance for Snape's classroom > manner. But that's another post. Kneasy: Snape will place no blame on upbringing or nature IMO. Snape *is*. He arrives fully adult and nasty with it. The archetype of the schoolmaster that makes life a misery for the boy-hero in school stories without number. It's not his attitude to Harry or Neville that requires analysis, it's his attitude towards Voldemort. Why has he changed? What caused him to join with people he doesn't like to oppose his natural ally? Sure as hell it wasn't his father shouting at him. (If he did. I've got at least three different interpretations of that memory scene in which the male is shouting(?) at the *woman*, not the child. All three open very contrasting cans of worms.) Can you actually see the Snape character whining "It's all my dad's fault"? or "I couldn't help it, your Honour, it's in my genes."? Hardly. More likely is "Get out of my sight, Potter." You look for psychology; I look for plot threads - the placement of characters in situations from which consequences arise. You may argue this is what you are doing; laying the psychological groundwork for character development. Largely irrelevant, says I. Harry was placed at the Dursleys for a *plot* reason - protection against Voldy, not to highlight the differing effects mental trauma have had on himself and Snape. That, if it has occured at all, is a very minor by-product and not essential to the plot. Emotional abuse is whatever people want to believe it to be. It is convenient label; a portmanteau phrase that can mean much or very little. Objective confirmation and quantification is difficult to obtain. It undoubtedly occurs, but unfortunately often seems to be used as the default defence of those who claim that nothing is their fault and so they cannot be held responsible for their actions. I don't know who is the more cynical; me or them. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 14:18:35 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:18:35 -0000 Subject: Persons of Simultanious Heritage (was Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88190 > wrote: > as far as we know > > from the books, there are less than ten pureblood families left in > > all > > filoroll: > No wonder the kids turn out bad, there's too much in-mixing within a > family. Must be due to genetic defects. Ginger: Please, filoroll, don't take this as though I am responding to you alone. It is not at all meant to be personal. There have been several comments since the tapestry was revealed in OoP implying or stating that being of simultanious heritage produces undesirable offspring. As we discussed the Slytherins that are or may be half blood, I wonder if the criteria for being "pure enough" is to be born of a witch and wizard, regardless of their birth circumstances. It seemed to be enough for Draco when he met Harry in Madame Malkin's. Draco asks about Harry's parents by asking if they were "our kind". Harry replies that they were a witch and wizard. Draco continues by saying that he doesn't think they should let the other sort in. It is kind of implied that he was satisfied with Harry's answer as he didn't press further. Nowhere in canon does it state or imply that being of pure blood is inferior. It just implies that being of Muggle heritage is *not* inferior. It also does not state or imply that the pure bloods are impaired by their geneology. Of the known pure bloods, only Crabbe and Goyle (both generations) are the type of people that fit in with the stereotype "inbred", that is to say: stupid, dull, gormless cretins. I would guess in those cases that the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Malfoy Sr, Sirius, James, Crouch, the Boneses, Ernie M. and the Weasleys are all pureblood without the negative "inbred" stereotype. Neville is (according to McGonnagal) only lacking in confidence. The same can be said of those who we can assume to be pure, but have no canon proof: Dumbledore, Snape, Olivander (what a memory!), many of the teachers, decent members of the MOM, (ie Perkins, Shacklebolt). While many may have less than desireable characteristics (Umbridge comes to mind), they are traits found amongst humans in general, and not due to "breeding". Sorry for the rant, but canon simply does not reinforce this stereotype, which recent studies have found is not as accurate as previously thought when viewing marriage of first cousins and further. So, that said, must we reinforce it here? Thank you for your time, Ginger who is her own 3rd, 4th, 6th, 6th once removed, and 7th cousin and has 2 extremely intelligent sisters From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 7 15:09:33 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:09:33 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: Sigune: > In fact, the whole Hogwarts system turns on competition. The Houses. > The House Cup. The Quidditch Cup. It might be useful if Dumbledore > just started a School Reform instead of forcing rivalry on his > students and then asking them to be nice and friendly with each > other. Well, I guess a really wise person should be able to overcome > these obstacles, but not all witches and wizards can be expected to > become Dumbledores, can they? Geoff: Yes, but this is an echo of the schools in the UK. It is very common, in both public and state schools, for there to be a house system of some sort which is used as a basis for competitions (usually sporting) within the organisation. It may carry more weight in a residential situation but it is still used almost universally to promote healthy rivalry. My grammar school which I attended in my teens had six houses and when old pupils meet up there is still an extra feeling of camaradie between those who were in the same house. The school in which I taught for 30 years had houses; my local Community College today has four houses which serve similar purposes. If you don't have some sort of competition to which students can strive then things like excellence can flag. From editor at texas.net Wed Jan 7 15:10:43 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:10:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Delight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88192 Haggridd: > [FILK] SCENE: Albus Dumbledore's brother Aberforth provides us with a hint > at why he might have gotten into trouble in his youth. *ahem* Really, Haggridd. And you a medical man. Wrong species. Goat. Inappropriate charms on a *goat.* Alas, "nanny" doesn't scan. ~Amanda, who had been momentarily derailed by this filk, having expected the tune to be "Afternoon Delight" (and which suits the subject matter and may still cry to be done) From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 15:30:42 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:30:42 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "filo_roll" wrote: > > Why is he not repelled by garlic? > > Only some vampires are repelled by garlic. The normal vampires on > Buffy are repelled, I think, but Anne Rice's vampires are not > affected. I do not have my books with me, but I always thought that Quirrell's turban being stuffed with garlic was a rumor, brought on by Fred and George. His turban smelled because he had Voldie hiding under there so I thought Fred and George assumed he was stuffing it with garlic. If it was a rumor then Snape would have no problem sitting by Quirrell because it really didn't have garlic in it. I do not remember JK saying that he actually had garlic in his turban, just that the students speculated it. Since I don't have my books with me I can not quote canon, Sorry. Diana From lynch at agere.com Wed Jan 7 15:37:40 2004 From: lynch at agere.com (zihav) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:37:40 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88194 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "as_ziggy" wrote: > So now I'm wondering what you all think about Snape's spying career. > Speak out =) > Tom: Hello Anne, Welcome to the group. This is a subject which interests me greatly. I've already posted my ideas on this, however I'm happy to post again :-) Snape can't possibly be the *direct* spy, but I think he is working through an intermediary. If LV catches the intermediary then Snape will get blamed and not the real spy. I think LV *knows* he turned over to the good guys. Snape is trying in his own way to make amends. Not doing a good job though. My theory on who the real spy is: Narcissa Malfoy. The reason she turned is when her son was born (Draco) she didn't want him growing up in a world ruled by LV. She gets the information from her husband (unknown to him that she has turned to spy for the Order) and passes it on to Snape for the Order. This is the reason Snape is friends with the Malfoys. It has been pointed out that Kreacher went to her, but even DD said that he couldn't pass on any Order information and she would have assume that Harry was safe at Hogwarts. I don't buy the double agent stuff. For one thing Snape has only been at Hogwarts for 14 years. This is in the OOTP when Umbridge is inspecting his class and asks about the DA post and how long he has been at Hogwarts. I think Snape is at Hogwarts for his own protection. How's that? Tom From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 16:17:02 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:17:02 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88195 Sigune wrote: In fact, the whole Hogwarts system turns on competition. The Houses. The House Cup. The Quidditch Cup. It might be useful if Dumbledore just started a School Reform instead of forcing rivalry on his students and then asking them to be nice and friendly with each other. Geoff replied: It is very common, in both public and state schools, for there to be a house system of some sort which is used as a basis for competitions (usually sporting) within the organisation. (Minor snipping) If you don't have some sort of competition to which students can strive then things like excellence can flag. Meri now: Yes, but (and I say this if only to be argumentative) Hogwarts is not, and was not, ever what I would call a normal school, and I'm not talking about the whole wizarding curiculum. This is a school that, in the coming war between LV and DD, could not only be a potential target for attack, and a potential stronghold against LV, but also a potential recruiting ground for boh sides. While, in normal Haogwarts years, a little friendly competition is healthy, fun and beneficial (hey, I cried along with Oliver Wood when Gryffindor took the Quidditch Cup), at this point in time, when divisiveness and animostity among wizards could very well be the downfall of all magical peoples, I think that Hogwarts and DD owe it to the population to try to make the school a breeding grounds not for more animostiy and hate but for kindness, friendship, or at least cooperativeness. Now, I also understand that this message will be lost on most of the students, from the DA kids to the DE's kids (and I personally can never see Harry and Draco having anything but an antagonistic relationship) but Hogwarts owes it to the future to try, and if the staff are all as loyal to DD as he believes them to be, then I think there will be a good chance that we will see at least the temporary suspension of the inter-house competitions. Though, I hope that they will allow Quidditch to go on, perhaps without any points being added up at the end of the games. Meri (with apologies for rambling and also because she really really really wants to see Harry play Quidditch again) From Kronae at hotmail.com Wed Jan 7 15:56:46 2004 From: Kronae at hotmail.com (kronaeb) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:56:46 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88196 I've been enjoying the Snape-y speculations lately but has anyone taken out the old "Perseus Evans" theory for examination since OoP? (In brief- Severus Snape anagrams into Perseus Evans. Remember Perseus from mythology? He killed the Medusa with 'snakes' for hair and fell in love with Andromeda.) I remembered it again while reading OoP when Sirius came up with a cousin called 'Andromeda'. Of course there's the Lily Evans and Mark Evans possible connection as well. This could just be a major JKR red herring but does anyone else have thoughts on this perhaps turning into part of a future plot? ~Kronae From przepla at ipartner.com.pl Wed Jan 7 18:20:27 2004 From: przepla at ipartner.com.pl (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:20:27 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FFC4DEB.6030600@ipartner.com.pl> No: HPFGUIDX 88197 On 2004-01-07 02:46, Andrew wrote: >In OOTP, when Ron first meets Luna, Ron tells a joke. > "He(Ron) lowered his voice to Goyle's low grunt and, screwing >up his face in a look of pained concentration, mimed writing in >midair. 'I...must...not...look...like...a...baboon's...backside....' > Everyone laughed, but nobody laughed harder than Luna Lovegood. >She let out a scream of mirth that cauesed Hedqig to wake up and >flap her wings indignantly and Crookshanks to leap up into the >luggage rack, hissing. She laughed so hard that her magazine slipped >out of her grasp, slid down her legs, and onto the floor. > 'That was funny!' > Her prominent eyes swam with tears as she gasped for breath, >staring at Ron." > >This sounds like a typical girl trying to make a good impression on >a guy she obviously is into. These is also an instance during the >practices of DA that Luna acts the same toward Ron, but I can not >seem to find it. > > I just couldn't add here similar quote from the end of the OOP (the 38th chapter). `Yeah, she shows signs of life if you do this,' said Ron, and with his tongue he made soft clipclopping noises. Umbridge sat bolt upright, looking around wildly. `Anything wrong, Professor?' called Madam Pomfrey, poking her head around her office door. `No no' said Umbridge, sinking back into her pillows. `No, I must have been dreaming' Hermione and Ginny muffled their laughter in the bedclothes. `Speaking of centaurs,' said Hermione, when she had recovered a little, `who's Divination teacher now? Is Firenze staying?' Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. (James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791) From EnsTren at aol.com Wed Jan 7 19:20:20 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:20:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape the spy Message-ID: <71.397e4634.2d2db5f4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88198 I had a thought that Snape is a doubleagent, and both Dumbledore and Voldemort know it. You serriously cannot expect Voldemort to let Snape not give him information on Dumbledore when he is so close to him. Likewise, Dumbledore is an inteligent man and must therefore realize this, and he IS getting information on the DEs. Also, meetings would call Severus away, and with Dumbledore's all seeing eye, that our Dear Voldie is familer with from his school days, Voldemort knows that DD must know about Snape leaving, and about the death eater meetings, then rightfully concludes that Snape is spying on him as well. Or he could just /ask/ Severus, and Severus manipulated the situation into this. In which case Severus might just be, in addition to Harry, a piece that the two titans move back and forth to manipulate each other. Each feeding each other information and disinformation with him as the interface. A game they play with each other using him. Now with Harry, before he was the piece to capture, now he's just another piece like snape, another level to the game. Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 19:21:16 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:21:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Delight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > Haggridd: > > > [FILK] SCENE: Albus Dumbledore's brother Aberforth provides us > with a hint > > at why he might have gotten into trouble in his youth. > > > > *ahem* > Really, Haggridd. And you a medical man. Wrong species. > > Goat. Inappropriate charms on a *goat.* Alas, "nanny" doesn't scan. > > ~Amanda, who had been momentarily derailed by this filk, having > expected the tune to be "Afternoon Delight" (and which suits the > subject matter and may still cry to be done) I had considered filking "Kids" from Bye Bye, Byrdie, but, to my knowledge, Aberforth was never charged with inappropriate charms on an underage goat. I did not want to slander the brother of the great Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore. Haggridd From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Wed Jan 7 19:47:33 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:47:33 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kronaeb" wrote: > I've been enjoying the Snape-y speculations lately but has anyone > taken out the old "Perseus Evans" theory for examination since OoP? > (In brief- Severus Snape anagrams into Perseus Evans. Remember > Perseus from mythology? He killed the Medusa with 'snakes' for hair > and fell in love with Andromeda.) > > I remembered it again while reading OoP when Sirius came up with a > cousin called 'Andromeda'. Of course there's the Lily Evans and Mark > Evans possible connection as well. This could just be a major JKR red > herring but does anyone else have thoughts on this perhaps turning > into part of a future plot? > ~Kronae Now me, Olivier You know, I have a little problem with all the anagrams theory (Cornelius Fudge, Severus Snape, Drooble's Best Blowing Gum are all anagrams). The thing is, some studies have been made on the frequency of anagrams in French, and the conclusion are absolutely definite, a complete name (surname plus family name) is usually an anagram, and most exceptionally not an anagram. I don't know if similar investigation have been made in English, but I am rather confident that the same result would hold, considering how close these languages are. So it would be surprising if names in HP turned out NOT to be anagrams, the fact that they are is the expectation. Now for a strange argument to support the fact that Severus Snape is just Severus Snape. In CoS, Tom Marvolo Riddle being Lord Voldemort was a nice anagram. The French translator dutifully modified Tom Riddle's name to fit the anagram and was even able to translate a bit of the meaning (Tom Riddle becomes something like Tom Random). Yet he has modified Snape's name to Rogue (so that the potential anagram is ruined). I surmise that if Snape's name had been a crucial clue, JKR would have advised translator not to modify it. But of course she could have kept this piece of info for herself, and Snape could be a lost Evans. I wonder how the French translator would then come out of the quagmire he would be in. Best wishes for 2004, Olivier From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Wed Jan 7 19:51:10 2004 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (Tracy Hunt) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:51:10 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Delight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > Haggridd: > > > [FILK] SCENE: Albus Dumbledore's brother Aberforth provides us > with a hint > > at why he might have gotten into trouble in his youth. > > > > *ahem* > Really, Haggridd. And you a medical man. Wrong species. > > Goat. Inappropriate charms on a *goat.* Alas, "nanny" doesn't scan. > > ~Amanda, who had been momentarily derailed by this filk, having > expected the tune to be "Afternoon Delight" (and which suits the > subject matter and may still cry to be done) Now Tcy: Amanda, I'm sooooo glad you added the bit about "Afternoon Delight"...as I was having flashbacks to the 70's in anticipation while clicking on this post - and was glad to see that I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of that song. Please note that I still had quite a chuckle (in an evil-oh-I-can't- believe-Haggridd-sunk-so-low kind of way) at the filk. And the "ewe" in the filk didn't even catch my attention as being the wrong species...I rather liked the play of 'ewe' vs. eeewwwwwww. But that's the kind of twisted mind I have. Tcy (who rather looks forward to Amanda's filk of "Afternoon Delight" whether or not it deals with beastiality) From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 19:23:38 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:23:38 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry (house elves and goblins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88202 Carol wrote: Hermione wouldn't know about House Elves before coming to Hogwarts > before she's a Muggle-born and probably assumed (as we did if we > thought about it) that the laundry was done by magic. (Actually, it > probably is--just not by the Wizards themselves.) And the author of > "Hogwarts, A History" is not so much "colluding in . . . oppression" > as simply taking for granted a thousand-year-old tradition, much the > way we Muggles take electricity for granted. In describing a friend's > home, we wouldn't say, "The house had electric light and a washing > machine." It would never occur to a reader that it didn't. > > Yes, that makes sense. That led me to another series of questions and wondering if there is any canon evidence/answers: 1. How long has this system been in place if it is "taken for granted" by the WW? 2. If this is the system, why don't all wizarding families have house elves? Why is this for the financially privileged or for institutions such as Hogwarts? 3. Prior to their enslavement, could they have been PAID assistants (which would, in some ways, answer Q2)? 4. If they were paid, what happened to their money? 5. Which brings me to this: House Elves and Goblins look a lot alike. Could the goblins have something to do with their enslavement? I know this is bordering dangerously to being OT, but in my mind it would set up an interesting rivalry between these two groups in another wizarding war. Many posts have speculated about goblins and house elves and where their loyalties may fall, but I have not read any posts addressing any possible connection between the two groups. Any ideas? Julie From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Wed Jan 7 21:33:42 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:33:42 -0000 Subject: HP and Dracula (Re: More Snape (might) be a vampire canon) In-Reply-To: <1aa.1e9bf236.2d2d3455@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote: [Huge snip, sorry Eloise] > > On reading Dracula (a vampire who did go abroad in daylight), I have to say > that the character who came most to mind was Voldemort, with the red eyes, the > mind connection thing with Mina Harker which is very similar to the way Harry > witnesses Voldemort's experiences through his dreams (and additionally the > realisation of both Dracula and Voldemort that this was happening), the fact that > Voldemort, in vapour form and possibly earlier was arguably "undead", having > gone through transformations which seem to have made him less than human yet > immortal and the whole idea of "death eating" whatever that is precisely, but > which has overtones of preying on the deaths of others as Dracula sucked the > life from his victims. > > ~Eloise Iris now: I'm glad you mentioned Dracula. I just didn't know where to put this: when I read OotP,the image of Snape killing flies in his teenager's dark bedroom made me think of Renfield, killing flies in his loon asylum's cell. He was waiting for "his master". Was young Severus waiting for Voldemort? One Knut, Amicalement, Iris From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Jan 7 21:50:56 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:50:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88204 In a message dated 1/6/2004 7:02:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Troels (t.forch at mail.dk) writes: The symbol for a one-magical-parent (mp1) student is a star while the symbol for a two-magical-parents (mp2) student is a star within a circle. Vincent Crabbe, Gregory Goyle and Lavender Brown are all marked with the mp2 symbol. Seamus Finnigan was originally marked with this symbol as well, but the circle surrounding his star has been crossed out. Millicent Bulstrode has the mp1 mark - the star without a circle. It is unfortunately not available at the moment, but once I get it up again, there's a fairly good screencap of this, along with an explanation at Hogwarts Library: http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/HarrysYear.html ************ Sherrie here: Here's a link to a site that shows the caps: http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/ I've got a question: In the list in the second screencap, there's a Slytherin listed by the name of Davis. We haven't seen this girl yet, have we? HER mark is a reversed pentacle -what can that mean? Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 23:18:35 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:18:35 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? Alternate Photo Location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/6/2004 7:02:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Troels > (t.forch at m...) writes: > The symbol for a one-magical-parent (mp1) student is a star while > the symbol for a two-magical-parents (mp2) student is a star within > a circle. > > ...edited... > > Millicent Bulstrode has the mp1 mark - the star without a circle. > > It is unfortunately not available at the moment, but once I get it > up again, there's a fairly good screencap of this, a.../: > http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/HarrysYear.html > ************ > Sherrie here: > > Here's a link to a site that shows the caps: > http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/ > > ..edited... > > Sherrie bboy_mn: Screen caps of the Hogwarts Student List are available in our very own HP for Grown Ups group, included enhanced versions at the end of the file list. (Enhanced version begin with the title 'School Li...') http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/lst?.dir=/Harry+Potter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/ It's in the Photo folder and is the second Album which is labeled 'Harry Po...'. Just passing it along. bboy_mn From t.forch at mail.dk Wed Jan 7 23:42:46 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:42:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040106195713.021c2360@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040108004059.02335150@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88206 At 03:45 07-01-04 +0000, justcarol67 wrote: >Troels answered: > There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. > > Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. > > >Tracey Davis? I can't remember encountering the name. Where is it >mentioned and how do you know that he/she is a "mudblood"? It's all from the notebook Rowling showed in the "Harry Potter and Me" TV special. There's a good screenshot of the notebook along with an analysis if the data at /Troels From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 8 00:13:58 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:13:58 -0000 Subject: The eagle owl Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88207 This might have come up in an earlier post (tried to search the archive, but couldn't find anything): In GoF, there is this seemingly uninteresting little detail observed by Harry. He is leaning on the window sill in the Owlery, looking out at the grounds. P. 469 UK Ed: Quote: "An eagle owl flew through the coil of smoke rising from Hagrids's chimney; it soared towards the castle, around the Owlery and out of sight." Reading on a few pages (and several weeks later), we meet another eagle owl, in Harry's dream about Voldemort: Quote: "He was riding on the back of an eagle owl, soaring through the clear blue sky towards an old, ivy-covered house set high on a hillside..." (GoF p. 500 UK Ed). The dream goes on telling how the eagle owl delivers a message to Voldemort, informing him someone is dead. We know this someone was Mr. Crouch Sr. To me it seems likely it is the same eagle owl appearing in these two scenes. In the first scene it is flying towards Hogwarts but not to the Owlery which would have been its natural destination had it only been on its way back from a regular hunting trip. It flew past the Owlery, around the castle and out of sight, clearly carrying a message to someone in another part of the castle. I think the eagle owl was sent by Wormtail on Voldemort's command, alerting Imposter! Moody of Mr. Crouch's escape (p. 599: "My master sent me word of my father's escape. He told me to stop him at all costs."). Several weeks later old Crouch turns up at Hogwarts. Imposter!Moody manages to save the situation, and sends the owl back to Voldie with the "good" news that his father has been successfully disposed of. I think it would be just like Rowling putting in that little detail about an eagle owl, and then mentioning it several pages and several weeks later :-) Anyone noticed any more eagle owl acticity in the books, apart from the owl that brings Draco a fresh supply of treats every week (that's an eagle owl if I remember corrrectly)? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob.snape.html From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 00:19:46 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:19:46 -0000 Subject: house elves and laundry (house elves and goblins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > Julie: > > ... led me to another series of questions and wondering if there is > any canon evidence/answers: > bboy_mn: Well, the answers aren't so much in Cannon as they are in the standards of fairytales and folklore. Our evidence from the books is limited, but JKR appears to have modeled much of her world on common legends and mythology. > Julie: > > 1. How long has this system been in place if it is "taken for > granted" by the WW? bboy_mn: That's like asking how long has man lived on the face of the earth; regarding magical creature of assorted nature and types, their time on the earth is measured in many thousands of years rather than decades of centuries. In those many thousands of years, the nature of House Elves has evolved in a way that gives them great personal satisfaction serving humans. So, this thing we call a 'system' is not an organized system at all, but a series of events that have evolved over time, into it's current state of affairs. > Julie continues: > > 2. If this is the system, why don't all wizarding families have > house elves? Why is this for the financially privileged or for > institutions such as Hogwarts? > bboy_mn: If you were a servant, would you prefer to be the servant of a pennyless bum, or the servant of a family of quality and wealth, a family with a fine manor, intelligent, and with beautiful educated kids? In a sense, what I am implying is that even amoung elves, who all volunteer to work free for their masters, there is an element of self-respect. No elf wants to be the elf of a bum; the quality of an elf, I speculate, in the eyes of other elves, is measured in the quality of the family they serve. An elf that serves a king, is indeed a noble elf indeed, and an elf that must serve a bum, must be a pretty trashy elf. So an element of self-respect comes into play. > Julie continues: > > 3. Prior to their enslavement, could they have been PAID assistants > (which would, in some ways, answer Q2)? > bboy_mn: No, I don't think so. Looking at the nature of house-elves, cobblers-elfs, and Brownies, I think their actions are a form of a need to help people, and a form of mischief. In a sense, elves in the broad mythical fairytale sense, sometimes perform there initial task as a trick; a bit of mischief they play on the owners of the house or shop. The elves sneak in at night, perform task (wash dishes, clean the house, make shoes for the cobble, make clothes for the tailor) then when they are done, just before dawn, the sneak away giggling madly at the thought of the look of shock on the house-mother's, cobbler's, tailor's face when they see that 'things' have been done better than they have ever been done before; the house sparkles beyond belief, the shoes are better than any shoes ever made, and the tailor's new clothes are grand, smart, and more handsome than anything he ever imagined. All the while the elves are laughing their butts off at the though of it all. And so they come back night after night because they think it is great fun to play this trick on the house-mother, cobbler, and tailor every night. Eventually, any house-mother, cobbler, or tailor will get wise enough and curious enough to stay up at night and see who or what is doing this wonderous thing. So they discover the existance of wonderous, generous, unselfish, and hard working elves. The problem in every fairytale occurs at this point, the cobbler or tailor have become rich and famous for the innovation and quality of their products, and they are so greatful that they have to do something nice for the Elves, if nothing else, just as a way of saying thank you; so they leave the elves some pay, or some clothes, or in some way acknowledge the existance of the elves and their little joke. But once the recipient acknowledges them, it spoils the joke. The humor in the elves helpful mischief is lost, and the elves are offended and go away. So goes the fairytaile of the Cobble and the Elves, so goes the fairytale of the Tailor and the Elves, and presumably, so goes the tale of the housewife and the elves. Time marches on, now elves and wizards are both aware of each other, and have acknowledged each other's present. When an elve comes to work for a wizard family, the elf makes a commitment; a commitment bound by elfish honor and pride. The elf makes an unswerving lifetime commit to serving this family with loyalty and diligence, to full honor his commitment through all subsequent generation of the elves family. That fierce sense of honor and loyalty are what bind a house-elf to the family is serves. Sadly, wizards see a neat little loophole in this commitment; it require great commitment on the part of the elf, but requires NO commitment on the part of the wizard. The wizard can use and abuse the elves anyway they choose, even abondon or dismiss the elves with out cause. In other words, the wizard is free to act without honor. This is the perfect situation for exploitation. The wizard knows that the elf is a fiecely honorable creature, and they they will stand by their commitment to serve even in the face of the most horrible treatment. And so this is how I see this current 'system' of house-elf enslavement evolving. Wizards are exploiting something that is inherent in the nature of elves; a inherent characteristic that is sadly lacking in wizards. Note, in this model of evolution, there is no law, whether magical or judicial, that holds the elf in his enslavement. The elf is held by nothing more than choice; he chooses to honor the commitment he made and the commitment that was made by his ancestors. He chooses to stay because thousands of years of honorable Elfin history will not allow him to choose to leave. > Julie continues: > > 4. If they were paid, what happened to their money? bboy_mn: The payment house-elves receive is the joy of service. Plus, I assume room and board; although the rooms seem pretty marginal, and I suspect the board is hardly more than leftovers in the less than honorable wizard households. > Julie continues: > > 5. Which brings me to this: House Elves and Goblins look a lot > alike. Could the goblins have something to do with their > enslavement? > bboy_mn: Goblins seem to be trouble makers, and they definitely have an 'anything for a buck $$$' attitude, so I could easily see the Goblin's profiting by re-enforcing and prepetuating the house-elves situation. I even have a sneaking suspicion that at some darker point in the wizard world history, there was the equivalent of a slave trade in house-elves. Of course, I am interjecting a great deal of specualtion here, but I really don't see my thoughts as being that far off. > I know this is bordering dangerously to being OT, but in my mind it > would set up an interesting rivalry between these two groups in > another wizarding war. Many posts have speculated about goblins and > house elves and where their loyalties may fall, but I have not read > any posts addressing any possible connection between the two > groups. Any ideas? > > Julie bboy_mn: Goblins strike me as being loyal to 'the winner', they bend which ever way the wind blows, especially if they can work it to their advantage. Elves in a sense are loyal to the families they serve, but even more loyal, by my theory, to those many millenniums of elfin pride and honor. I can see the elves at some point realizing this, realizing that their greatest loyalty is to themselves and their tradition, and that that tradition deserves respect. How that will manifest itself, I'm not sure, but I feel confident we will see the elves, especially the Hogwart's house-elves join in the fight against Voldemort with Harry, Hermione, and Dumbledore being their rallying point. Hermione's big mistake in SPEW is thinking that things related to Elves need to change; it's not the elves that are the problem, it's wizards. If Hermione wants to help the plight of the elves, she needs to work on changing wizards. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 19:27:45 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:27:45 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88209 > Geoff: > Yes, but this is an echo of the schools in the UK. It is very common, > in both public and state schools, for there to be a house system of > some sort which is used as a basis for competitions (usually > sporting) within the organisation. It may carry more weight in a > residential situation but it is still used almost universally to > promote healthy rivalry. > Julie: Is it in canon or just assumed that the heads of the houses were once sorted into those houses as students? What about the possibility of a teacher who went to another wizarding school? Would they qualify to be the head of a house? From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 00:05:40 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:05:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88211 >Sherrie says: I've got a question: In the list in the second screencap, >there's a >Slytherin listed by the name of Davis. We haven't seen this girl yet, have >we? HER >mark is a reversed pentacle -what can that mean? No, we've not seen this girl yet. So that means (to my conjecture, at least) that either she'll become prominent in either book 6 or book 7, along the lines of how Luna Lovegood and Zacharias Smith only just came to our attention in book 5. I'd guess that the reversed pentacle suggests that Davis some hidden twist to her, or some detail that makes her different from her other housemates. But what that difference could be, I've no speculations upon it. I've heard thoughts that she may be a 'good' Slytherin, but it seems to me that the key traits of Slytherin (ambition, creative cunning, often a disregard for rules unless they can be worked to one's advantage) doesn't necessarily mean that a person is evil. I've had some good friends who could be described as possessing those qualities. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Expand your wine savvy and get some great new recipes at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com From hermione978 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 00:53:21 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:53:21 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!)/ Snape as DE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88212 Snape as a vampire? I have a hard time buying that one. There has been no evidence of this so far in the books. He is however connected, at least in his past, to Lord "He Who Must Not be Named". It was mentioned in the fourth book I believe that he bears the mark of the Death Eaters. Snape for whatever reason chose to desert the dark side and come to the good. At the Quidditch World Cup many a Death Eater fled when they found out about Lord He Who Must Not Be Named's return- out of fear from deserting as well as cutting a deal with the Ministry of Magic for their release and freedom if they repented and turned in other dark wizards for the Azakaban prison. Perhaps Snape is one of those who has made the deal with the M of M for his freedom. Perhaps he knows something or has a connection a bit deeper to He Who Must Not Be Named that has not been revealed yet in his activity. Regardless, he is a former Death Eater, now one of the Order of the Phoenix protecting Harry and keeping his activity confined to Hogwarts as potions master. In the books remaining that will come I think that Snape will encounter He Who Must Not Be Named and possibly killed for his regarded treason to the dark arts by turning good. I think we will find out why he was a Death Eater to begin with and why he went good. I think that perhaps he may have had connections to Harry more than just as a school mate of Harry's father, James. It may not be as far fetched as one thinks to assume he may have played a role in James and Lily Potter's deaths. Though I am just speculating, I have a good hunch and I'm usually pretty on target with my hunches... We will wait and see. "hermione978" From hermione978 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 00:57:08 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:57:08 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88213 Kronae wrote: > I've been enjoying the Snape-y speculations lately but has anyone > taken out the old "Perseus Evans" theory for examination since OoP? > (In brief- Severus Snape anagrams into Perseus Evans. Remember > Perseus from mythology? He killed the Medusa with 'snakes' for > hair and fell in love with Andromeda.) > > I remembered it again while reading OoP when Sirius came up with a > cousin called 'Andromeda'. Of course there's the Lily Evans and > Mark Evans possible connection as well. This could just be a major > JKR red herring but does anyone else have thoughts on this perhaps > turning into part of a future plot? A worthy speculation that I had not thought of. I have some theories of my own about old Snape, also connecting him to James and Lily Potter. Snape, a former Death Eater, may have played a role in their betrayal prior to their deaths. Though Snape has deserted the dark side for the good, it is worth keeping an eye on him using the clues left behind about his past and his current status. Perhaps keeping him at Hogwarts as potions master is Dumbledore protecting Snape just as he has protected Harry in the past through his muggle relatives and Dumbledore's own presence. "hermione978" From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Thu Jan 8 01:32:48 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:32:48 -0500 Subject: (FILK) Snape Dressed As Gran Message-ID: <410-22004148132482@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88214 Having a bit of fun tonight...heh. Snape Dressed As Gran (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of "Sharp Dressed Man" by ZZ Top) Midi is here: http://www.geocities.com/jbravo1977/ZZ_TOP.html Lupin: Dark Arts, defense All of the students are under suspense Boggart, wardrobe Neville says he's a Snape-a-phobe That is how my very first class began 'Cause nobody frightened of Snape dressed as Gran Boggart will appear Transform it's shape into what you fear Laughter's the key Then the Boggart's power will recede Neville was nervous but I told him, "You can. 'Cause nobody frightened of Snape dressed as Gran" Out comes Severus Neville then exclaims, "Riddikulus!" Green dress, handbag Snape is now dressed all in drag It was a part of my new lesson plan 'Cause nobody frightened of Snape dressed as Gran Gail B...feeling good about not being fettered to LSoH anymore...rock on. houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 01:38:23 2004 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:38:23 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zihav" wrote: Tom: "Snape can't possibly be the *direct* spy, but I think he is working through an intermediary. If LV catches the intermediary then Snape will get blamed and not the real spy. I think LV *knows* he turned over to the good guys." I agree. In Muggle espionage terms, Snape is completely "blown" and couldn't possibly be exposed again. He'd be taken up at once and crucio'd to death. So what good is he? Tom: "My theory on who the real spy is: Narcissa Malfoy. The reason she turned is when her son was born (Draco) she didn't want him growing up in a world ruled by LV. She gets the information from her husband (unknown to him that she has turned to spy for the Order) and passes it on to Snape for the Order. This is the reason Snape is friends with the Malfoys. It has been pointed out that Kreacher went to her, but even DD said that he couldn't pass on any Order information and she would have assume that Harry was safe at Hogwarts. Your hypothesis is plausible and fits what we know. I can imagine Narcissa being repelled at the same future for her son that her husband has; he may be cruel to her and this is her revenge. If your hypothesis is right then there's a problem: has her usefulness destroyed because Lucius is now in lockup? If Lucius escapes he'll have to go underground; will she have contact with him? > Tom: "I don't buy the double agent stuff. For one thing Snape has only been at Hogwarts for 14 years. This is in the OOTP when Umbridge is inspecting his class and asks about the DA post and how long he has been at Hogwarts. I think Snape is at Hogwarts for his own protection." Likely. It's DD that keeps Snape straight. The protection is as much from himself as from the newly revived DE's. Jim Ferer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 02:05:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:05:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > Troels: > > There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. > > > Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. > > > > > > Carol: > > Tracey Davis? I can't remember encountering the name. Where is it > > mentioned and how do you know that he/she is a "mudblood"? And can > you > > tell me where Millicent Bulstrode's parentage is mentioned? > > > > > It seems odd > > that Pansy Parkinson would tolerate Millicent's presence in her > > dormitory she knew she was a "mudblood." > > Geoff: > Isn't there some confusion here? Troels lists three names as "half- > bloods" and you're picking up on two of them as "mudbloods". > They can't be both.... Sorry. Brain dead. My point is, I've never heard of Tracey Davis and wanted to know where Millicent is referred to as a *half* blood. That question has been answered, sort of. It's apparently in her notes somewhere (but I don't consider notes as canon since they're only an aid to composing and writers often deviate from their original plans). Is this Tracey person also in the notes? He/she has not appeared in the books to my knowledge. It would have helped to correct me *and* answer my question using "half blood" instead of "mudblood." :-) Sorry to sound grouchy, but I do know the difference between a "mudblood" and a halfblood. The reason I didn't "pick on" the third member of the list, Tom Riddle, is that I already knew his status as a half blood. So, one more time. Who is Tracey Davis and how do we know that he or she is a half blood? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 02:09:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:09:35 -0000 Subject: More Snape (might) be a vampire canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > If you don't think Snape is a vampire, that's fine. I am not trying > to convince anyone. This is for those who groove with the theory. > > In book one, Hagrid becomes agitated when Harry, Ron, and Hermione > argue that Snape was trying to hurt Harry during a quidditch game. > > "I'm tellin' yeh, yer wrong!" said Hagrid hotly. "I don'know why > Harry's broom acted like that, but Snape wouldn' try an' kill a > student!" (SS, p. 193). > > This scene always made me scratch my head. I wondered why Hagrid > would get all hot and bothered over this. If snape is a vampire, > then Hagrid might be defending Snape because he feels that the same > could be said of him (and it will be later on in the books). Def. > canon showing that Snape is a vampire? Nope. Another scene that > might have a second dimension? Yep. > > Jake Since Hagrid can't keep a secret to save his life, he's the last person to whom Snape or Dumbledore would reveal such information if Snape really were a vampire. It would be all over the school. Or rather, Snape's career would be at an end. The parents don't want a werewolf as a teacher. It's safe to say that they don't want a vampire, either. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 02:30:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:30:49 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88218 Carol wrote: > We're told very plainly in books one and two that Petunia is a Muggle. > > Also JKR has made the point directly in an interview: > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/0200-scholastic-chat.htm Francois responded: > All the interview says is that wizards can be born to muggles.... Carol: Actually the quote refers specifically to Petunia: Q. Since Harry Potter's parents were sorcerers and Petunia was Harry's mother's sister. Shouldn't Petunia be a witch or wizard? A. No. As Hagrid explains in Book I, sometimes a witch or a wizard occurs in an otherwise Muggle family, just as a Squib is a non-magic person who occurs in an otherwise magic family. In other words, Lily is a witch who has "occurred" in "an otherwise Muggle family," and Petunia is one of the Muggles in that family. In order to be a Squib, she'd have to be from "an otherwise magic family." Muggle parents can have a Witch or Wizard child, but they can't have a Squib. I do think there are Squibs (and consequently Wizards) further back in the family, but we're told over and over again in books one and two that Petunia is a Muggle. (Granted, she has more experience with the WW than most Muggles. I think possibly her parents were murdered by DEs and she has certainly heard about Dementors. But that doesn't make her a Squib, only the sister of a witch.) Also Dumbledore himself calls Harry a "half blood" even though his parents are a wizard and a witch because his mother's parents were Muggles and her blood still somehow prevents his from being "pure." Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 02:59:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:59:39 -0000 Subject: Persons of Simultanious Heritage (was Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88219 > Ginger wrote: > As we discussed the Slytherins that are or may be half blood, I > wonder if the criteria for being "pure enough" is to be born of a > witch and wizard, regardless of their birth circumstances. Carol: That can't be the case or Dumbledore would not refer to Harry (the son of a Muggle-born witch and a presumably "pureblood" father) as a "half blood" in contrast with Neville, who is a "pureblood." Ginger: It seemed > to be enough for Draco when he met Harry in Madame Malkin's. Draco > asks about Harry's parents by asking if they were "our kind". Harry > replies that they were a witch and wizard. Draco continues by saying > that he doesn't think they should let the other sort in. It is kind > of implied that he was satisfied with Harry's answer as he didn't > press further. Carol: Draco, who is all of eleven during this conversation, probably sees only two types of wizards at this point, "purebloods" and "mudbloods." He isn't old enough or sophisticated enough to think about "halfbloods" and other complications of his simple "us" vs. "them" philosophy. Sorry to snip all your arguments about "purebloods" not being inferior. Certainly the Slytherins don't think so! I think you're right that the question is whether Muggle-borns are just as skilled as any other witches and wizards and that the answer is yes. The question of the possible inferiority of *purebloods* isn't even raised and is entirely outside the canon. (I agree with your basic position but am responding to other points in your post.) Carol P.S. I have no idea what the title of this post means but "simultaneous" is misspelled and possibly misused. C. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 03:22:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 03:22:50 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? Alternate Photo Location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88220 > bboy_mn: > > Screen caps of the Hogwarts Student List are available in our very own > HP for Grown Ups group, included enhanced versions at the end of the > file list. (Enhanced version begin with the title 'School Li...') > > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/lst?.dir=/Harry+Potter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/ > > It's in the Photo folder and is the second Album which is labeled > 'Harry Po...'. > > Just passing it along. > > bboy_mn Carol: Thanks for reminding us that these lists are in the Files. However, it's possible that these lists are not definitive or completely up to date. Unless my eyesight is playing tricks on me, which is entirely possible, Terry Boot is listed as Trevor Boot. If the names are subject to change, so is the parentage. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 03:30:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 03:30:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040108004059.02335150@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer wrote: > At 03:45 07-01-04 +0000, justcarol67 wrote: > >Troels answered: > > There are, and has been, several half-blood wizards in Slytherin. > > > Tom Riddle, Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis. > > > > > >Tracey Davis? I can't remember encountering the name. Where is it > >mentioned and how do you know that he/she is a "mudblood"? > > It's all from the notebook Rowling showed in the "Harry Potter and Me" > TV special. > > There's a good screenshot of the notebook along with an analysis if the > data at > > > /Troels Thanks for the information. It looks to me as if Tracey Davis did not materialize and has probably been crossed off the list. As I noted before, Terry Boot's name was originally Trevor (like Neville's toad!). In other words, interesting as this information is as a reflaction of JKR's thought process, we can't trust it as definitive regarding the characters as they are actually depicted in the books. At best we can say that Millicent Bulstrode *may* have only one wizard parent and that JKR considered this parentage for her. Carol From as_ziggy at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 01:21:46 2004 From: as_ziggy at yahoo.com (as_ziggy) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:21:46 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88222 Tom, you said: "My theory on who the real spy is: Narcissa Malfoy . . . How's that?" Very interesting. Never thought that Mrs. Malfoy had much of a role in the Harry Potter series though. I guess we'll have to wait and see. You also said "It has been pointed out that Kreacher went to her" That may be significant too but perhaps Lucius wasn't home. In any case, LV found out something from Kreacher. Would that mean that Narcissa passed that info on? Just curious. I haven't actually read that part very carefully. Anna From Intensefancyblue at aol.com Thu Jan 8 03:24:35 2004 From: Intensefancyblue at aol.com (Intensefancyblue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:24:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Persons of Simultanious Heritage Message-ID: <1ac.1ef1499f.2d2e2773@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88223 Dear Ginger, I think that what you're really saying is whether or not people who have similar backgrounds are more inclined to form cliques. And they do. But, so do people of similar interests. Lord Voldemort obviously felt that Harry who has a background that mirrors his own would be a tougher opponent than Neville who has both parents but is raised by his grandmother. Example: Draco Malfoy in the movies looks an awful lot like a skinhead with his attitude towards Muggle-borns. While Ron, who is also a pure- blood doesn't care at all and accepts Hermione (what he worries about is if his little sister is in danger or his wand acts up or Errol crashes into a window with a message...you get the picture) for who she is. Sincerely, Intensefancyblue [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 03:53:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 03:53:32 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88224 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > > Geoff: > > Yes, but this is an echo of the schools in the UK. It is very > common, > > in both public and state schools, for there to be a house system > of > > some sort which is used as a basis for competitions (usually > > sporting) within the organisation. It may carry more weight in a > > residential situation but it is still used almost universally to > > promote healthy rivalry. > > > > Julie: > Is it in canon or just assumed that the heads of the houses were > once sorted into those houses as students? What about the > possibility of a teacher who went to another wizarding school? > Would they qualify to be the head of a house? Carol: Ron says that he's heard that *Dumbledore* was in Gryffindor (SS 106) and Sirius says in OoP that Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins. Other than that, all we have that I know of is the loyalty of the two Heads of Houses we know best (Snape and McGonagall) to their respective quidditch teams (McGonagall couldn't look Snape in the eye for weeks after his team beat hers, etc.). We don't see quite the same attitude with Flitwick (the head of Ravenclaw) or Sprout, the head of Hufflepuff, but their characteristics certainly seem to fit their respective houses. The Lexicon shows that McGonagall *attended* Hogwarts and even gives the years (based IIRC on McG's age as given by JKR in an interview), but I don't know if her attendance is speculation or not. Certainly her loyalty to Gryffindor indicates that she was a Gryffindor in her childhood and youth, but that's the only actual evidence I'm aware of. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 04:09:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 04:09:45 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "as_ziggy" wrote: > Tom, you said: > "My theory on who the real spy is: Narcissa Malfoy > . . . > How's that?" > > Very interesting. Never thought that Mrs. Malfoy had much of a role > in the Harry Potter series though. I guess we'll have to wait and > see. > > You also said > "It has been pointed out that Kreacher went to her" > > That may be significant too but perhaps Lucius wasn't home. In any > case, LV found out something from Kreacher. Would that mean that > Narcissa passed that info on? Just curious. I haven't actually read > that part very carefully. > > Anna Kreacher went to Narcissa because she was the only Black he trusted who wasn't in Azkaban. Clearly he'd have gone to his beloved Bellatrix had she been free. Since it was Narcissa, not Lucius, to whom Kreacher was loyal, it must have been Narcissa, not Lucius, to whom he revealed his information about Sirius and Harry. Either Lucius was present or Narcissa revealed it to him and he in turn revealed it to Voldemort. It would appear that Narcissa is a true Black, maybe not a Death Eater like her husband and sister, but not someone we can trust. Also, since Draco idolizes his father and emulates his views and actions as far as he's capable, it would appear either that Narcissa shares and encourages those views or that her influence is negligible. I'd say the former is more likely. BTW, has anyone noticed that Narcissa picked out Draco's wand, or at least she went to the wand shop to look at wands for him (SS 77). He may have joined her later and swished around a few wands that she had picked out until sparks flew out of one, but that's a strange little detail if indeed the wand chooses the wizard! Carol, who doesn't trust Narcissa any more than she trusts Draco From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Jan 8 05:21:21 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:21:21 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88226 "hermione978" wrote: > Snape as a vampire? I have a hard time buying that one. Now me, Marianne: Me, too, but just because there have been so many descriptions of bat- like swooping that it seems just a tad over the top. Plus, how would that advance the story? Snape as another being looked down upon by wizard society, like werewolves, elves, giants, etc.? It seems like overkill to me. Hermione 978: There has > been no evidence of this so far in the books. He is however > connected, at least in his past, to Lord "He Who Must Not be Named". > It was mentioned in the fourth book I believe that he bears the mark > of the Death Eaters. Snape for whatever reason chose to desert the > dark side and come to the good. > > At the Quidditch World Cup many a Death Eater fled when they found > out about Lord He Who Must Not Be Named's return- out of fear from > deserting as well as cutting a deal with the Ministry of Magic for > their release and freedom if they repented and turned in other dark > wizards for the Azakaban prison. Perhaps Snape is one of those who > has made the deal with the M of M for his freedom. Perhaps he knows > something or has a connection a bit deeper to He Who Must Not Be > Named that has not been revealed yet in his activity. > > Regardless, he is a former Death Eater, now one of the Order of the > Phoenix protecting Harry and keeping his activity confined to > Hogwarts as potions master. In the books remaining that will come I > think that Snape will encounter He Who Must Not Be Named and > possibly killed for his regarded treason to the dark arts by turning > good. I think we will find out why he was a Death Eater to begin > with and why he went good. I sure hope we get this info. I'm not entirely convinced that Snape is good, just that he's chosen not to throw his lot in with Vmort and his merry band of DEs. I'm betting that we will find out that Snape turned to the "good" side simply because he was smart enough to hedge his bets. As Phineas Nigellus says, "We (Slytherins) will always choose to save our own necks." No turning to the side of light because of unrequited love for Lily. No sudden epiphanies about the unholy abominations of DE beliefs. No, no, no. Those are not nearly Snape-ish enough reasons to change sides. I think old Sev was simply smart enough to have doubts about the wisdom of throwing in his future with some trumped-up dark lord. After all, had Voldemort won, his loyal henchmen would still have had to bow and scrape before him, kiss his ring or the hem of his robes and swear fealty to him. Again, it doesn't seem to be Snape's style. I think Snape took the measure of Voldemort and was cunning enough and daring enough to start playing both sides against each other, and eventually decided he'd have a better chance at determining his own future and fortune if he sided with Dumbledore. Which still leaves open the door for betrayal, for those of you who lean that way. Here's Snape, who has been the loyal Potions Master for 14 years, even though he dearly wants to be the DADA instructor. Dumbledore never gives the position to him. Snape is supposedly trusted by Dumbledore, seems to have as much authority as McGonagal within the school, yet he constantly seems to run up against Dumbledore's wishes. He wants to be DADA professor, and isn't allowed. He often seeks to rein in that reprobate, Harry Potter, and Dumbledore constantly rewards or encourages Harry's rule-breaking behavior. He agitates against Lupin's appointment as DADA professor, and seeks to cast doubt on Lupin's motives in PoA, and Dumbledore refuses to believe him. He thinks he's earned an Order of Merlin with the capture of Sirius Black, and Sirius slips away. And, now, although he's a member of the Order, there still seems to be this distance between him and the others. If Snape indeed is still playing the part of double agent, I think he could very well decide to opt for Voldemort's side in the upcoming battle, especially if Dumbledore dies, and Snape believes that the only hope for the "good" side rests on the undisciplined, headstrong shoulders of Harry Potter, who, in Snape's eyes, is still no match for Voldemort. Marianne From jakejensen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 05:54:58 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:54:58 -0000 Subject: More Snape (might) be a vampire canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Since Hagrid can't keep a secret to save his life, he's the last > person to whom Snape or Dumbledore would reveal such information if > Snape really were a vampire. It would be all over the school. Or > rather, Snape's career would be at an end. The parents don't want a > werewolf as a teacher. It's safe to say that they don't want a > vampire, either. > > Carol It is true that Hagrid has trouble keeping secrets. However, I don't know why you think he doesn't know Lupin is a werewolf. Hagrid was in the OoTP (see, OoTP, p. 175). He's known Lupin for decades. And he's not terrible at keeping a secret. He's terrible at keeping a secret when someone alreadys knows quite a bit (e.g., Fluffy). For example, he didn't fess that he was a half-giant until well into book four. And then, only after Harry had pretty solid evidence that he was (from evesdropping on him at the dance). If Snape is a vampire, I think Hagrid would know. If Harry suspected this and confronted Hagrid, then Hagrid would probably crack. Moreover, in this scene we see Hagrid already becoming flustered (a sign that he is starting to crack). Jake From tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 06:49:03 2004 From: tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com (Ali) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:49:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88228 > Meri now: > Yes, but (and I say this if only to be argumentative) Hogwarts is > not, and was not, ever what I would call a normal school, and I'm > not talking about the whole wizarding curiculum. This is a school > that, in the coming war between LV and DD, could not only be a > potential target for attack, and a potential stronghold against LV, > but also a potential recruiting ground for boh sides. While, in > normal Haogwarts years, a little friendly competition is healthy, > fun and beneficial (hey, I cried along with Oliver Wood when > Gryffindor took the Quidditch Cup), at this point in time, when > divisiveness and animostity among wizards could very well be the > downfall of all magical peoples, I think that Hogwarts and DD owe it > to the population to try to make the school a breeding grounds not > for more animostiy and hate but for kindness, friendship, or at > least cooperativeness. < snipped > I'd actually have to argue the opposite. I think that keeping the house system intact, now more than ever, is a good idea. It's the kind of stability you grasp onto when the world is swirling madly about you. The competition fostered at Hogwarts is a healthy one. As it isn't fueled by hate, there's no harm in it. My argument is that, given the oncoming war against Voldie, the more Hogwarts keeps itself running normally, the better. Change, especially sudden change of a major nature like putting a halt on the house system, is always accompanied by stress. The one thing these kids do not need is more stress. Assaulted with the turmoil of the Voldie war, it's much easier to have stability to hold on to, even when that stability means competition against your classmates. Besides, the kids have already shown that, when they so desire, they are able to reach across houses to form a united front against their foes. Umbridge & the DA comes to mind. I think they'll be fine regardless of the house system. ~Ali, who firmly believes in the house system From tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 07:10:59 2004 From: tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com (Ali) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:10:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88229 > Now me, Marianne: > Me, too, but just because there have been so many descriptions of bat- > like swooping that it seems just a tad over the top. Plus, how would > that advance the story? Snape as another being looked down upon by > wizard society, like werewolves, elves, giants, etc.? It seems like > overkill to me. Ali: Agreed. It's way over the top and unnecessarily pointless. Combine this with what Kneasy said - JKR cheating by presenting a vampire with no typically accepted vampiric traits - and I'd say that pretty much sums up my personal reasoning for why I do not think that Snape is a vampire. While I accept that JKR is the writer and she is fully within her powers to make Snape a vampire, I really think that she wouldn't pull such a deus ex machina styled trick. I think she's a much better writer than that. > Marianne: > I sure hope we get this info. I'm not entirely convinced that Snape > is good, just that he's chosen not to throw his lot in with Vmort and > his merry band of DEs. I'm betting that we will find out that Snape > turned to the "good" side simply because he was smart enough to hedge > his bets. As Phineas Nigellus says, "We (Slytherins) will always > choose to save our own necks." < snipped reasoning > I never thought of that before, but I think I could fully see how that would be possible. In fact, I like to think it may even be a distinct possibility. After all, it fits Snape's profile that he is neither inherently good nor bad; he just has a wonderful sense of self-preservation. To be sure, I wouldn't put it past JKR to completely mislead us about Snape, but until other evidence surfaces, I think I'll be supporting this idea. ~Ali, who feels hopelessly lost for attempting to jump into the Vampire!Snape debate From filo_roll at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 02:36:30 2004 From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:36:30 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88230 Berit replies: > I have a hard time imagining Snape being able to hide his fangs if > he's got any, considering how often he sneers and bares his teeth > at everything in general and Harry in particular :-)) filoroll: Snape files them down to size! Kneasy: > Tut, tut! Come, now! Let's have a modicum of sportsmanship. Play > the game. > > I ask for evidence and you write fanfic! Not in PR are you? > I could counter by claiming that Snape really is Neville's > grandmother and that the Boggart he fears represents reality. > (Where does Snape go in the holidays, anyway?) filoroll: I see you have taken my fanfic way and written fanfic in reply. (Snape probably stays at school, but might drop in on his bloodsucking fiends in Transylvania.) Kneasy: > OK, JKR can do what she likes, but it would take some brass neck to > present a vampire with none of the characteristics famed in song > and story without some previous hint that in the WW accepted folklore > is being so drastically re-written. I call that cheating. > > It would be equivalent revealing that Flitwick is a rather short > giant or that Petunia is a heavily disguised Veela. It's just not on. filoroll: The traits that you require do not necessarily represent the IT vampire. It's not drastic revisionism. If you look at other vampire stories the vampires don't have every single trait that you mention. Snape has some of the characteristics of a vampire that's why some people believe that he is a vampire. I don't see how you come to the conclusion about Flitwick being a short giant. A short giant is Hagrid's height. He is obviously a dwarf. I don't think Petunia has any sex appeal, except maybe to her husband. You seem to have come up with ridiculous comparisons because you are unable to counter my answers to your questions. ;) Diana wrote: > I always thought that Quirrell's turban being stuffed with garlic > was a rumor, brought on by Fred and George. His turban smelled > because he had Voldie hiding under there so I thought Fred and > George assumed he was stuffing it with garlic. > If it was a rumor then Snape would have no problem sitting by > Quirrell because it really didn't have garlic in it. filoroll: Either way, it could work. Snape can either be unaffected by garlic if there was garlic in Quirrel's turban or there never was any garlic in the turban, just Voldie hitching a ride. From barbara.jo at juno.com Thu Jan 8 05:26:37 2004 From: barbara.jo at juno.com (Barbara Dunlap) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:26:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88231 "Julie Stevenson" wrote: > >Sherrie says: I've got a question: In the list in the second screencap, > >there's a > >Slytherin listed by the name of Davis. We haven't seen this girl yet, have > >we? HER > >mark is a reversed pentacle -what can that mean? > I'd guess that the reversed pentacle suggests that Davis some hidden twist > to her, or some detail that makes her different from her other housemates. > But what that difference could be, I've no speculations upon it. This is my first post, so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this. To me, it looks like her symbol was originally the square denoting no wizard parents. I think JKR then went back and drew a star over the square. If you look closely, you can see the top right corner of the square behind the star. I don't know why it only has five points. Maybe another mood on another day. Just a thought. Barbara From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Jan 8 08:17:31 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:17:31 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3FFDACCB.12755.952BA1@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88232 On 8 Jan 2004 at 1:49, Ali wrote: > Besides, the kids have already shown that, when they so desire, they are > able to reach across houses to form a united front against their foes. > Umbridge & the DA comes to mind. I think they'll be fine regardless of the > house system. I agree - House systems can actually be a very positive thing in this regard. I don't know if there's been any research into it in the UK - I suspect there probably has been at some stage - but here in Australia, there was quite a bit - mostly on the First World War. Back when that war started, Australia had to build a professional army very quickly - and it did so quite effectively. To do so, it drew a significant proportion of its instant junior officers from a particular group of schools - all of which had strong rivalries with other schools (that were in that same group) and many of which had strong internal rivalries through House systems. I went to one of these schools (far later than World War I!) and I've paid attention to this type of stuff. What they hypothesise, based on what happened then, is that the strong rivalries that existed within these schools fostered very close cooperation among students against their rivals, and that became very useful in time of war. This rivalry *could* have been a problem - if it had carried on after school, when they needed to stand together - but it didn't. They found that when it was necessary, these people pulled together with their formal rivals, perfectly well against the common foe. They'd learned how to work together against their enemies - the House systems had often also provided many with more experience of leadership that they might have otherwise had. House systems don't have to be positive - but they very easily be. The Sorting Hat doesn't totally condemn the House system, IMHO: "The houses that, like pillars four, Had once held up our school." It sounds to me like the system might have worked for a time, even to the Hat's liking. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Thu Jan 8 08:20:53 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:20:53 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: List Elf Email Addresses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88233 Hi, everyone! It's been mentioned here and there by some list members that they'd wanted to contact one of the list elves, but didn't have their addresses. Below are the email addresses for the elves who welcomed you when you joined our group -- if you do not see your list elf in this group, that person is most likely now a 'retired' elf, but don't worry! Just contact us at the owner address: HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com and a current elf will help you out. Also included are the addresses for the elves who handle the pending messages from our members who are still on moderated status. These addresses can also be found here on the main list in the Files section. You'll see it in the Admin Files folder there. Please remember you're welcome to contact any of us with any questions or concerns you may have, and as always you can reach us all at the owner address if you prefer. Best, Kelley Elf, for the List Admin Team Welcome Elves: Abigail -- Bookish Elf -- abigailnus@ yahoo.com Ali -- Merry Elf -- Ali@ zymurgy.org Grey Wolf -- Fluffy Elf -- greywolf1@ jazzfree.com Jen -- Jenny Elf -- jfaulkne@ sas.upenn.edu Jo -- Dusty Elf -- jmmears@ comcast.net Joy -- Joysie Elf, the Help Desk Diva -- joyw@ gwu.edu Kelley -- Kelley Elf -- kelleythompson@ gbronline.com Kirstin -- Teeny Elf -- kirst_inn@ yahoo.co.uk Maria -- Manya Elf -- mariaalena@ yandex.ru Marina -- Filky Elf -- rusalka@ ix.netcom.com Melody -- Aphreal Elf -- Malady579@ hotmail.com Petra -- Penapart Elf -- penapart_elf@ yahoo.com Phyllis -- Poppy Elf -- erisedstraeh2002@ yahoo.com Pip -- Pippy Elf -- pip@ etchells0.demon.co.uk Pippin -- Peppy Elf -- foxmoth@ qnet.com Sheryll -- Rylly Elf -- s_ings@ yahoo.com Wendy -- Hebby Elf -- hebrideanblack@ earthlink.net Pendings Elves: Ali -- Ali@ zymurgy.org Debbie -- elfundeb@ comcast.net Dicentra -- dicentra@ xmission.com Eloise -- eloiseherisson@ aol.com Kelley -- kelleythompson@ gbronline.com Kirstini -- kirst_inn@ yahoo.co.uk Maria -- mariaalena@ yandex.ru Marina -- rusalka@ ix.netcom.com Pip -- pip@ etchells0.demon.co.uk Sheryll -- s_ings@ yahoo.com Wendy -- hebrideanblack@ earthlink.net From doliesl at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 09:12:09 2004 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:12:09 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88234 > > Marianne: > > I sure hope we get this info. I'm not entirely convinced that Snape > > is good, just that he's chosen not to throw his lot in with Vmort and > > his merry band of DEs. I'm betting that we will find out that Snape > > turned to the "good" side simply because he was smart enough to hedge > > his bets. As Phineas Nigellus says, "We (Slytherins) will always > > choose to save our own necks." (sorry to snip) D: One major problem with this view: I do not believe such selfish, self- preserved menality could won Dumbledore's trust at all. Dumbledore is a trusting man but not a fool. Unless Snape indeed possessed abilities (other than occlumency) and some great plans that are far too valuable that somehow justified enough his place in the eyes of Dumbledore and other order members. No order member (other than Sirius, well he doesn't count since he hasn't been around all these years) has raise suspicion about Snape at all. A former DE's reason of turning "good" even convince the likes of Molly Weasley, who did not seem to object nor make a fuss about his credibility at all. You keep mention how your view fit with Snape's style this and that, it certainly does NOT fit with the painful image of Snape rubbing (unconsciously) his dark mark, and his seemingly fearful insistence in not calling out Voldemort's name. Because what you are saying tends to generalize and simplifie ALL of Snape's character and all his past actions. The self-preservation reason really is nothing so sacred nor special that is only between Dumbledore and Snape. To me it is predictable and BORING, sorry to say that. It's like, after all the mysteries over why Dumbledore trusts him turns out he is just another token Slytherins stereotype who is ever so predictable. It literarally spell out for you already. Such "secret" do not need all that high-secrecy and 2 more volumes to reveal. JKR can do better than that. She keeps telling us to keep an eye on Snape; there're more story to tell about Snape. In my reading he is not a flawless master-scheme commander type who is capable of playing Dumbledore all along, nor would betray Dumbledore. Maybe JKR was speaking through Dumbledore (she said if there is something she wants to tell readers as the truth it would be through either Hermione or Dumbledore) when he said unapologetically "I trust Severus Snape." However there are couple obvious Snapish qualities to keep in mind as possibilities of why he turn "good": vengeful, a thirst to prove being "right", a thirst to be "recognize", hard working to achieve, insecurity, jealousy, emotional (especially that "wearing emotion" speech that could be about himself afterall)...etc. there are just so much more possibilities than being solely self-interest and self-preserve. D. agree with all who're against the vampire theory and not crazy about the Perseus Evans anagram thingy...been there done that guys From brinforest at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 09:27:51 2004 From: brinforest at yahoo.com (brinforest) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:27:51 -0000 Subject: Snape as Hawkin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88235 Hi, I haven't been here for a while, but I popped in to re-present an idea that I put out in June at the height of the OotP discussions and that was promptly lost in the mass of other topics. Now that things seem quiet, I'd like to hear from anyone who has read The Dark is Rising series lately - what do you think? The following is a quote from me in June. When JKR was discussing Snape with Stephen Fry at Albert Hall, she said something to the effect of "don't like him too much though", and "he's not completely nice" or something. This suddenly reminded me of a character called Hawkin in The Dark is Rising, which I recently reread. He was a mortal whose help Merriman Lyon (non-mortal, father figure to Hawkin and mentor to the young main character Will Stanton) had to rely on to carry out an important, predestined task that involved subjecting Hawkin to mortal danger. Hawkin was perfectly willing to do this, and loyal to Merriman, whom he loved and trusted; he completed fulfilled his part, but while doing so, he came to fully realise the danger he was subjected to by his trusted father figure. His resentment then led him to betray the good side. (This was also known beforehand by Merriman.) As a kind of punishment for his betrayal, Hawkin ended up with another task that ruined his life (understatement of the year), and he was *eventually* killed by the evil side. Snape as Hawkin... I'm too lazy to think up examples of what exactly might happen, but the sequence of loyalty to trusted old mentor - full realisation of danger to self - mentor's apparent indifference to this - resentment - betrayal suddenly seems kind of appealing. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Jan 8 11:42:24 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:42:24 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "filo_roll" wrote: > > filoroll: > I see you have taken my fanfic way and written fanfic in reply. > (Snape probably stays at school, but might drop in on his > bloodsucking fiends in Transylvania.) > Kneasy: Exactly. I asked for *canon evidence* for the Snape!Vampire theory and received instead a list containing "He was bitten while on holiday with his parents in Transylvania"; "He goes to a Blood Bank to feed" and so on. None of your answers were supported by canon. I replied in kind. > > filoroll: > The traits that you require do not necessarily represent the IT > vampire. It's not drastic revisionism. If you look at other > vampire stories the vampires don't have every single trait that you > mention. Snape has some of the characteristics of a vampire that's > why some people believe that he is a vampire. Kneasy: No, they don't show all the traits mentioned; but they all show some of them. That is the point I'm making. To be defined as a vampire means Snape must match at least some of the key characteristics. The absolute *must have* trait is the habit/need to suck the blood of living persons. That is how the word 'vampire' is defined in mythologies, dictionaries and encyclopaedia of folklore and fable. If the creature doesn't, then they are not a vampire. Other characteristics may vary depending on the author's whims, but there will always be some that accord with the accepted conventions. To show that Snape is vampiric, it is necessary for an unbiased but reasonably suspicious reader to be able to deduce, from the written word in the HP series, that he feeds on blood. Other indications of vampiric activity in the neighbourhood of Hogwarts would give support, past victims becoming afflicted, for example. (Blood flavoured lollipops won't do it; not when Hags have been shown to favour blood-rich food items. Nor will the past discussion of does/doesn't Snape eat at feasts/Grimmauld Place. Not eating in company does not prove supping blood in private. It emphasises his anti-social credentials.) filoroll: > I don't see how you come to the conclusion about Flitwick being a > short giant. A short giant is Hagrid's height. He is obviously a > dwarf. I don't think Petunia has any sex appeal, except maybe to > her husband. You seem to have come up with ridiculous comparisons > because you are unable to counter my answers to your > questions. ;) > Kneasy: Flitwick and Petunia were deliberately ridiculous examples made to demonstrate how anyone can come up with anything if they are prepared to indulge in speculation that has no canon support. You are obviously strongly attached to the Snape!Vampire theory. I assume you must have some evidence for taking this stance. Fine; let's hear it. But I won't be responding unless it comes from canon and is objectively compelling. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 12:17:27 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:17:27 -0000 Subject: Persons of Simultanious Heritage In-Reply-To: <1ac.1ef1499f.2d2e2773@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Intensefancyblue at a... wrote: > Dear Ginger, > > I think that what you're really saying is whether or not people who have > > similar backgrounds are more inclined to form cliques. And they do. But, > so do people of similar interests. Ginger here: Actually, I hadn't thought much about cliques. I was just pointing out that having the same ancestor on more than one branch of the family tree doesn't make one as stupid as some feel it does. The WW doesn't show this at all. Certainly family members tend to group together, but that isn't due to the formation of a clique, it is just familiarity and blood ties. Intensefancyblue continued: Lord Voldemort obviously felt that > Harry > who has a background that mirrors his own would be a tougher opponent > than Neville who has both parents but is raised by his grandmother. Ginger again: At the time LV went after Harry, Neville was living with 2 healthy parents. The DE attack which left the Longbottoms in St. Mungo's was after LV had attacked the Potters, as Dumbledore tells Harry, "after Voldemort's fall from power, just when everyone thought they were safe." (GoF US hardcover p. 603) As Carol pointed out, Dumbledore told Harry in OoP that LV had chosen Harry for his lineage, due to them both being of mixed blood. She also brought up the interesting point that Dumbledore referred to Harry as a "half-blood", even though his parents were both wizarding folk. Young Riddle does the same in CoS. Which brings us back to the drawing board as to how much wizarding blood is required to be considered pure-a topic of much previous speculation on this list! Intensefancyblue continues: > Example: Draco Malfoy in the movies looks an awful lot like a skinhead > with his attitude towards Muggle-borns. While Ron, who is also a pure- > blood doesn't care at all and accepts Hermione (what he worries about > is if his little sister is in danger or his wand acts up or Errol > crashes into > a window with a message...you get the picture) for who she is. Ginger again: As I am not a movie person, I can't comment on Draco's looks, but his attitude in the books is certainly skinhead. And you are quite right about Ron as well. If we look at the parents, it seems that the attitudes are learned at home in both cases. What is noticibly absent, (getting back to the point of my original post) is any evidence that either of them having been decended from the same people on more than one branch of the tree ("inbred") has caused them any defects. Ginger, thanking Carol for correcting my spelling From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Thu Jan 8 14:14:28 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Ann Bohacek) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:14:28 -0000 Subject: (FILK) Hog's Head Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88238 Hog's Head (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of "Downtown" by Petula Clark) Dedicated to Haggridd. Original Midi Tune* http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/1329/downtown.mid Down in Hogsmeade If it's some booze that you need then I know of a place: Hog's Head It's a bit sleazy But in there it is easy To disguise your face: Hog's Head You can remain anonymous, if that is what you're needing It's the inn which has outside a sign that has a bleeding Severed hog's head The place is covered with grime I think it hasn't been cleaned there in quite a long time, inside Hog's Head, there's a really bad scent Hog's Head, like a goat is present Hog's Head, nobody decent goes there (Hog's Head) They do not card So then it isn't that hard For you to get a drink: Hog's Head The barkeep's none other Than Al Dumbledore's brother Least that's what I think: Hog's Head You'll find there Mundungus wears assorted witches' dresses Ask him why, he'll say, "To spy," but that's not what my guess is That's what he likes So maybe we'll meet him, too When we visit there next weekend, when we come from school, we'll see Hog's Head: if you're drinking something Hog's Head, your own glass you should bring Hog's Head, just a small warning for you (Hog's Head, Hog's Head) Hog's Head (Hog's Head) Someone was thrown out because he was caught outside a door Listening to an interview Sybil had with Dumbledore A prophecy So next time you're in Hogsmeade We'll drink away all our problems, first round is on me, down at Hog's Head, where shady people go Hog's Head, to hide in the shadow Hog's Head, let the fire whisky flow free Hog's Head (Hog's Head) Hog's Head (Hog's Head) Hog's Head (Hog's Head) Hog's Head (Hog's Head) *If the link does not work for some reason, here is the homepage of the site and there you'll find the link to the Midi: http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/1329/moetown.html -Gail B. From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 8 12:19:20 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:19:20 -0600 Subject: Snape as a Vampire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88239 Okay...I've been staying out of this ever since I spoke my viewpoint about a week ago, mostly because I haven't had a chance to go re-read the books and start gathering canonical evidence for either way, but the exchange between Kneasy and Filo struck me funny...and what struck me funny was those darn lollipops everyone keeps mentioning in Honeydukes. Not arguing for or against here, but a few things to point out-- 1) In a business sense, keeping the lollipops for one or two local vampires in a container that obviously carries a lot of them is rather foolish from a financial POV...unless, the product is highly popular--which would indicate, I would think, that there has got to be a healthy vamp and/or hag population around somewhere (And not just Snape if he is one). Otherwise, it would behoove the storekeeper to make them available as a 'special order' item instead--if for no other reason than because the stock would likely go bad before it could all be purchased (and I suspect that even with spells to keep them 'fresh', those blood-suckers would go bad fairly quickly, simply because blood has a shelf life of just about nothing--if you all want, I'll go ask the guys in the hospital lab here just how long the stuff lasts out of the body). That's a strictly business sense thing, but Rowling seems to have her pulse on RL issues like that and will incorporate them into her writing, which is why I brought it up. 2) (Still not really 'for' or 'against' here, but this is the thought that got me started on the email). Can any of you, even the ones who are all for the Snape as a Vamp theory honestly imagine him walking around with a lollipop stuck in his mouth? Seriously? At least not without giggling madly at the thought first, that it. Talk about ruining your reputation...;) Anne (Not enough coffee and feeling silly) From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 8 13:48:17 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:48:17 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88240 Anna: > So now I'm wondering what you all think about Snape's spying career. > Speak out =) > > Gee, Anna, you won't have to say that twice! It must be my favourite subject, though I can't pretend to have a perfectly developed theory like most of the other people who posted replies to you do. I merely have a lot of questions, I think. But here are a few points of reflection. Point the First: I have difficulty assuming that Snape and the DE's, let alone Snape and Voldemort, are "natural allies" and that it is therefore really puzzling that he turned to Dumbledore. Here is why: * Sirius (I believe it was him) tells Harry that Snape was part of 'a gang of Slytherins' who nearly all became DE's. It would be easy to assume a kind of allegiance between Snape and this gang; but to me this seems a little shaky at best. As far as we know, the 'gang' did not really stand by Snape when he was bullied by Potter and his cronies, and Snape seems hardly the kind of person to take kindly to this kind of desertion. He's essentially a loner, and I doubt if he would see his ex-classmates as kindred spirits. * As to Voldemort, I hardly believe Snape could ever have served him wholeheartedly. I am not saying that I believe Snape to be in fact 'good' or 'kind' or a softy or whatever (he's plain nasty and that's fine with me); it's just that it seems so unlikely that he would accept being ordered about and controlled in such a thorough fashion as is Voldemort's habit. DE's have to come at dear Voldie's beck and call, and answering 'no' to any order is not an option. Would a man like Snape suffer such treatment gladly? I don't think so. What we DO know fits in perfectly with the DE's and Voldemort is Snape's passion for the Dark Arts. I think (but this may be naive) that Snape joined the DE's in order to be able to further study the Dark Arts, hoping that Voldemort would share his occult knowledge with him and the other followers. He cannot have failed to be awed by Voldemort's extraordinary Dark powers; and he probably didn't care enough about the victims of the DE's actions to let those stand in his way to more Dark knowledge. Also not without importance, I think, is the fact that although we don't know exactly when Snape joined the DE's, he must have been very young, seeing that Voldemort was defeated when Severus was around twenty-one, by which time he had already changed sides. So when he joined he must have been between seventeen and twenty, which is (I would hope) an age at which some allowance should be made for impulsive and wrong decisions. I think that a motive for joining Dumbledore might have been Snape's realisation that there might be as much, if not more, to learn from Dumbledore than from Voldemort; and Dumbledore seems more ready to impart his knowledge anyway. Also, getting a teaching assignment at Hogwarts not only meant an escape from prosecution by both the DE's and the Aurors, but (*flourish*) unrestricted library access. And the Hogwarts library contains a treasure of Dark Arts books, Moste Potente Potions being only one of them. So what better place to immerse oneself in study of the Dark Arts than Hogwarts? The Hogwarts regime, it seems to me, is fairly liberal even towards the nastier sides of Slytherin(s). And unlike Voldemort, Dumbledore isn't likely to Cruciate people who voice objections to orders or decisions. But yes, I know, that doesn't really account for the fact that Dumbledore should so trust someone as slippery as Snape. Point the Second: indeed, how on earth can he spy after having been 'cleared in court' by Dumbledore? Here is the familiar question of the 'one who has left me forever' and 'where does Snape go at the end of GoF'. When I read these passages I immediately assumed the first to refer to Snape and the second to mean that Snape went to kiss the hem of Voldemort's robe and offer a thousand apologies for being late. However, on closer inspection Snape's position would seem precarious at best. * Here I have to voice some skepsis which is just innate to me - PLEASE don't avada kedavra me - , being: is Snape important enough for JKR to take the trouble to explain all this spying business to us? This is just me, but I never trust an author until I have read the last page of a story. What I mean is: maybe we just have to accept that Snape is again spying for Dumbledore and gets away with it, full stop. * IF NOT, much depends on a) how many people heard Dumbledore's defense of Snape (Karkaroff, for one, seems likely to crack up if the Dark Lord would give him as much as a stare) b) how gullible, or vulnerable to flattery, Voldemort is c) how incredibly clever, agile, cunning, brilliant Snape will turn out to be (this is the same guy who failed to defend himself against James Potter; nearly got himself killed by taking bait from Sirius Black; and was disarmed and knocked out by students in the Shrieking Shack) d) since OOP: why doesn't Kreacher report him? * I myself don't really go in for the 'spying by proxy' theory; it doesn't put Snape out of danger. What seems likelier is, indeed, that he has close ties with Lucius Malfoy, though I can't imagine they would be real friends. In fact I can't imagine anyone to be Snape's real friend, though he might /respect/ people like Dumbledore. I think his relationship with Malfoy would be calculated rather than genuine. * Why might Voldemort take Snape back? For one, it might be nice to have someone at Hogwarts. If Voldemort asks himself why Snape went there in the first place, there are reasons of self-interest that are perfectly convincing: stay out of the Aurors' hands. Also: recruit future followers; guard the heritage of Salazar Slytherin. What use to Voldemort is a DE in prison? And in what sense is working at Hogwarts more cowardly or treacherous than claiming you acted under the Imperius Curse? Besides, no-one at Hogwarts likes Snape. And even when he does things in Dumbledore's interests, they always look bad even though they aren't. He doesn't /say/ a single thing that can be held up against him as treason to Voldemort. Even when Karkaroff appeals to him in GoF he keeps holding off, giving the impression that he has in mind to go back to the Dark side. I think also that Voldemort might just be vulnerable to a bit of sliming. He really thinks the world of himself and treats even Lucius Malfoy, who, in the spirit of the DE creed, would be higher ranking in hierarchy than himself on account of his pure blood, like a slave. He just adores people grovelling for him. So maybe if Snape grovelled enough and endured a few Cruciatus Curses, and accused himself of unforgivable stupidity for not guessing Quirrell was acting for the Dark Lord, Voldemort might feel magnanimous enough to let him live. After all, he can use all the support he needs; maybe he feels confident enough to think he has all his DE's perfectly in hand. And there is, of course, Snape's skill as an Occlumens - this is perhaps his greatest strength, and much more useful than his knowledge of potions. Oh dear, have I been rambling on... I guess I had better save any more thoughts for a next post - no-one is going to be brave enough to read any future ones I write if they all turn out to be so long :). Yours severely, but with an apologetic look, Sigune, whose obsession with the character of Snape tends to cloud her brain from time to time - she is not an Occlumens herself... From Monsieur_de_Bergerac at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 14:12:24 2004 From: Monsieur_de_Bergerac at hotmail.com (Laurence) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:12:24 -0000 Subject: HP, inconscient sexim from JKR? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88241 I don't know if this subject has already been talked about (I search for sexism, nothing shows) but in this very well documented essay: http://contraveritas.zephy.net/funstuff/essays/women.htm Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist, maybe not so much in the portraying of the characters themselves (quoi que... see Molly Weasley) but above all from a plot driven point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for the advance of the villains and she gives a lot of example of this concept, between Bertha Jorkins (pictured totally incompetent, and who's a puppet in Voldemort hand), Ginny Weasley too naive to recognize Voldemort in the diary, or the mother of Crouch who let an assassine loose. (go read her essay to understand better what I'm trying resume) Do you think that we can call sexist a book which plot advances through mistakes more often made by women than by men? Could it be interesting to inspect this aspect of things in OotP? For example, are we given an ample description of Tonks as a women or just because her Metamorphmagus abilities (does someone speak of the sex of Metamorphmagus?) I would like to hear what you think about it. Laurence P.S. By the way, I'll introduced myself: 24-y-belgian girl, first language French (English 3rd, it explains bad grammar), electrical engineer, part of "Women in Sciences"(WiSe...), HP fan, HG/SS shipper. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 8 10:43:05 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:43:05 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88242 Quoting Kneasy: <> Sigune: That is so true - who can imagine Snape whining? Or maybe it's just me who can't. Which is why I would really, really like to know how he got his nickname of Snivellus... Yours severely, Sigune From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 8 15:58:21 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:58:21 -0000 Subject: HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88243 Laurence wrote: > I don't know if this subject has already been talked about (I search for sexism, nothing shows) but in this very well documented essay: > > http://contraveritas.zephy.net/funstuff/essays/women.htm > > Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist, > maybe not so much in the portraying of the characters themselves > (quoi que... see Molly Weasley) but above all from a plot driven > point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for the advance of the villains and she gives a lot of example of this > concept, between Bertha Jorkins (pictured totally incompetent, and > who's a puppet in Voldemort hand), Ginny Weasley too naive to > recognize Voldemort in the diary, or the mother of Crouch who let an assassine loose. > (go read her essay to understand better what I'm trying resume) > > Do you think that we can call sexist a book which plot advances > through mistakes more often made by women than by men? Could it be > interesting to inspect this aspect of things in OotP? Dear compatriote, I have no idea if this issue has been discussed before (I am quite new to this list), but I certainly think it is interesting. I work on gender studies myself and it has become a kind of reflex to pay attention to gender issues in any book I read or any film I see. Much as I enjoy reading HP, JKR's depiction of women characters does irritate me more than once. As the author of the essay you mention points out, it is usually women who do stupid things, and (as far as I am concerned) they are often pictured in a more unsympathetic way than those men who seem less than bright. Or compare a character like Umbridge to other (male) cruel, nasty or evil characters in the books. I bet that while the Malfoys and Snape have their admirers, no- one will feel called upon to start an Umbridge fan listing. Besides being evil, she is also pictured as a) incompetent and b) a caricature of those things considered feminine - her girlish voice, her penchant towards everything pink and fluffy... She is a horror; and we have yet to witness the arrival of a comparable creature of the male sex. I do miss strong women in the stories. There is McGonagall, of course, but even though she is Deputy Headmistress she has, until now at least, never played a really crucial part in the plot. There is Neville's formidable grandmother, and on the other side of the scale Bellatrix Lestrange, but they are (until now) marginal figures. Hermione is given much more breathing space than any of the women mentioned, but she still corresponds to a vast number of clich?s about girls and women - studious, rule-abiding, damsel-in-distress etc etc - and she is invariably made to miss the crucial moments of action (see, for example, in OOP where she is injured before the crucial stage of the 'battle' sets in). Apart from Hermione, most girls at Hogwarts are pictured in a rather negative, stereotypical way - look at the Patil sisters and Lavender Brown, or, for that matter, Cho Chang. Girls swoon in front of Lockhart. Girls swoon in front of Krum. Girls adore Trelawny's silly Divination classes. Girls are cry-babies. They are gullible, they are giggly - JKR /almost/ makes you prefer Milicent Bulstrode. Surely there must be a middle way between Hermione Granger and Lavender Brown. However. I think the gender thing is something JKR simply doesn't care much about. She imagines her characters and writes them down as they come. Harry is a boy; I guess it isn't weird his best friend is Ron rather than Hermione. The archetypal picture that springs to mind when you think of 'someone wise' is an old man with a white beard (justified or not), so that would be Dumbledore. This is an example of a cultural icon that has existed for ages and ages; so unless you really mean to make a point of it, you keep your icons in place. I regret JKR making that choice, but she is the author, and she chooses to focus on other themes, like racism. I think there is much more to say, but I'd need to think further about it. I am very eager to read other reactions to a topic close to my heart (ahem). Yours severely, Sigune From jkscherme at adelphia.net Thu Jan 8 17:15:21 2004 From: jkscherme at adelphia.net (Kristen) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:15:21 -0000 Subject: Snape as Hawkin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "brinforest" wrote: > (Snip) > > When JKR was discussing Snape with Stephen Fry at Albert Hall, she > said something to the effect of "don't like him too much though", > and "he's not completely nice" or something. > > This suddenly reminded me of a character called Hawkin in The Dark > is Rising, which I recently reread. He was a mortal whose help > Merriman Lyon (non-mortal, father figure to Hawkin and mentor to the > young main character Will Stanton) had to rely on to carry out an > important, predestined task that involved subjecting Hawkin to > mortal danger. Hawkin was perfectly willing to do this, and loyal to > Merriman, whom he loved and trusted; he completed fulfilled his > part, but while doing so, he came to fully realise the danger he was > subjected to by his trusted father figure. His resentment then led > him to betray the good side. (This was also known beforehand by > Merriman.) As a kind of punishment for his betrayal, Hawkin ended up > with another task that ruined his life (understatement of the year), > and he was *eventually* killed by the evil side. > > Snape as Hawkin... I'm too lazy to think up examples of what exactly > might happen, but the sequence of loyalty to trusted old mentor - > full realisation of danger to self - mentor's apparent indifference > to this - resentment - betrayal suddenly seems kind of appealing. madeyesgal It's an interesting idea, but it's been done; and by another author...Wouldn't it be a huge betrayal to his character and to the story if JKR chooses to use this device to realize the end of Snape? Personally, I think she has more imagination than that. There's a reason that Snape wants the DADA job...to teach Defense "against" the Dark Arts. He knows first hand the subtle (and not so subtle) ways in which a wizard/witch can be taken by "the dark side." He really is the most logical amongst the staff to teach that position. I think he's going to end up doing just that...one way or the other. Looking into my crystal ball, I see something catastrophic taking place that will have Snape & Harry joining forces, in a dis- harmonious, but cooperative manner, to thwart off death and destruction, yet another time. (Who says Trelawany has the only gift of sight?) I don't believe this is wholly predictable and it is surely allegiant to the characters. madeyesgal (who will defend Snape's inate goodness unless she's proven wrong in Book 7) From lynch at agere.com Thu Jan 8 17:33:56 2004 From: lynch at agere.com (zihav) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:33:56 -0000 Subject: Snape the spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88245 > justcarol67 wrote: > It would appear that Narcissa is a true Black, maybe not a Death Eater > like her husband and sister, but not someone we can trust. Also, since > Draco idolizes his father and emulates his views and actions as far as > he's capable, it would appear either that Narcissa shares and > encourages those views or that her influence is negligible. I'd say > the former is more likely. Tom: I'm afraid we don't have enough information yet to *know* if Narcissa is a DE or not. It's just my theory that she is in a much better position to spy for the Order than Snape could ever be. I also base this on the way JKR introduces a character, but doesn't give you any information about them. This has happened with Mrs. Figg and Sirius just to name two. Sirius was first mentioned in Book I. Certainly Krecher puts a hole in this theory, however we still don't know who else was at the house when Krecher arrived. Where exactly *was* LV hiding out during the entire OOTP? Was it at the Malfoy's? > justcarol67 wrote: > BTW, has anyone noticed that Narcissa picked out Draco's wand, or at > least she went to the wand shop to look at wands for him (SS 77). He > may have joined her later and swished around a few wands that she had > picked out until sparks flew out of one, but that's a strange little > detail if indeed the wand chooses the wizard! Tom: That is interesting, I wonder if that is important or not... > justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, who doesn't trust Narcissa any more than she trusts Draco Tom: A lot of people don't trust Snape, but DD does. I think it's still too early to say... Tom From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 17:46:44 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:46:44 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88246 > > Meri's original post: > > Yes, but (and I say this if only to be argumentative) Hogwarts is > > not, and was not, ever what I would call a normal school, and I'm > > not talking about the whole wizarding curiculum. This is a school > > that, in the coming war between LV and DD, could not only be a > > potential target for attack, and a potential stronghold against LV, > > but also a potential recruiting ground for boh sides. While, in > > normal Haogwarts years, a little friendly competition is healthy, > > fun and beneficial (hey, I cried along with Oliver Wood when > > Gryffindor took the Quidditch Cup), at this point in time, when > > divisiveness and animostity among wizards could very well be the > > downfall of all magical peoples, I think that Hogwarts and DD owe it > > to the population to try to make the school a breeding grounds not > > for more animostiy and hate but for kindness, friendship, or at > > least cooperativeness. > < snipped > Ali argues: > I'd actually have to argue the opposite. I think that keeping the house > system intact, now more than ever, is a good idea. It's the kind of > stability you grasp onto when the world is swirling madly about you. The > competition fostered at Hogwarts is a healthy one. As it isn't fueled by > hate, there's no harm in it. > > My argument is that, given the oncoming war against Voldie, the more > Hogwarts keeps itself running normally, the better. minor snips > Besides, the kids have already shown that, when they so desire, they are > able to reach across houses to form a united front against their foes. > Umbridge & the DA comes to mind. I think they'll be fine regardless of the > house system. Meri again: You make an excellent point. I didn't take into consideration the fact that the interhouse competitions are normal for Hogwarts, and that this normalcy will be comforting to the kids who will clearly be facing some tough times. However I think that your last statement ("the kids have already shown that, when they so desire, they are able to reach across houses to form a united front against their foes") is a little misleading. Yes, the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws have shown that they can unite against their foes, but the Slytherins are excluded from that union. Now admitedly the Slytherins were the Inquisitorial Squad that the DA found them up against and many of the Slytherin's families appear to be DEs, but there should be, IMHO, at least an attempt to make the whole of the four houses unified. We have seen before the willingness of the other three houses to be very anti-Slytherin, and again IMHO, this is the divisiveness that must be stopped. Assuming that just because someone is sorted into Slytherin house makes them evil is too one- sided for JKR, and I personally hope that she does explore more both the good and bad qualities of all the houses. Afer all, Harry could have easily been a Slytherin, and it was a Ravenclaw (Marietta Edgecombe) who betrayed the DA to Umbridge. Meri (who would be sorted into Hufflepuff should she ever get accepted to Hogwarts) From mysmacek at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 17:52:29 2004 From: mysmacek at yahoo.com (mysmacek) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:52:29 -0000 Subject: Prague As A Possible Durmstrang Location? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88247 Hi, Entropy, as a Prague native, I could not resist :-) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > Hello, everyone! Saw a show last night on PBS that dealt with the > history of alchemy. Many famous alchemists were mentioned, including > Nicholas Flamel (yes, he was real and yes, he is said to have produced > a Philosopher's Stone) and Paracelsus (remember that bust of > Paracelsus mentioned in OOP?). Well, about halfway through the show, > Prague was mentioned. Apparently, Prague had become a hotspot of > alchemical activity in the 16th century, even after it had fallen from > favor throughout much of Europe. > > Alchemists were often known to communicate through complicated codes > and beautifully colored, symbolic drawings. Many of these drawings > eventually became used as a source of divination, becoming what is now And don't forget Rabbi Loewe, the creator of Golem. > known at Tarot cards. Prague's streets are said to move (not unlike > Hogwarts' staircases), and Prague is known as the birthplace of vampires. I won't comment on the moving streets (you know, the magistrate and their public works encure that the streets are really moving perpetually), but a birthplace of vampires? Hardly. Vampires belong to Carpathia. Yes, the belief in vampires is of ancient Slavic origin, and there were findings of vampire(*) graves in central Bohemia, but for me it certainly belongs to Balkan folklore. At least I do not know of any vampires in Prague, excluding Kulhanek's excellent book "Nocni klub" (The Night Club) > With this strong connection to alchemy, divination, and others, it > struck me that Prague or it's surrounding areas may be a perfect spot > for a Durmstrang location. Although it's got somewhat mild > spring/summers (60F), the winters are supposed to be brutal. That Brutal??? When it's really really cold here in winter, it's -20 C and all the citizens complain of public transport and do not stick their noses out of their homes. Now it's around zero, which certainly is not brutal, compared to e.g. Russia or Scandinavia. > would jibe with the heavy cloaks worn by the Durmstrang students upon > their arrival at Hogwarts. There is also the heavily trafficked > Prague River, which runs through the middle of Prague, hence the > arrival by ship. The river is called Vltava, btw. Almost all historical dwellings (at least in Europe) were built in vicinity to rivers. Durmstrang is a german language, not Czech (although there used to be a heavy German influence here, and it would not be a blocker if Durmstrang was founded e.g. in 17th century.) Personally, Durmstrang for me is a strange Bulagarian - German mix, as far as I can tell from the names. I would place it in Germany. Mysmacek ------- (*) "vampire" means that the corpse was mutilated or bound after death to prevent it to raise as a vampire and feed on the living From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Thu Jan 8 18:08:32 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:08:32 -0000 Subject: HP, inconscient sexim from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88248 Hi all, Two themes really here : first the essay, second sexism in JKR's book. Starting with the essay, I honestly think it is not a very good one. The author has taken just about any mistakes commited by a woman in HP and used it as argument. But that is not sexism per se, what he should have done is comparing the proportion of mistakes done by men and mistakes done by female. If one is significantly higher than the other, then it is sexism. I think it is quite easy to see that men do countless mistakes in HP, so most of the rationale is ruined. Moreover, since everything is seen through Harry's eyes, it is natural that men come first. As Pippin pointed once, the sex of the fabulous chasers that ensure Irish victory at the Quidditch world cup are not explicitly given, and one has to read carefully pronouns to discover that two of them at least are female. That is typical of the Harry/JKR duality, when one suspects sexism, it is necessary to see if it is from the character of the author. This article fails to make the distinction. But the important discussion is the second theme, a bad article could bring a relevant point. Sexism has of course been discuted countless times on the board, though I won't blame anyone for not finding it, the archives are quite impossible to read. Personnally, I don't understad how JKR could be blamed for picturing passive female character, especially after OoP. What about Umbridge, McGonagall, Hermione, Bellatrix, Ginny, Mrs.Weasley, Luna ? In fact, it could be argued that male characters are passive : Sirius broods, Harry is angry, Ron is unsecure, Dumbledore is absent, Hagrid is not there or wounded, Lupin is almost never there... >Apart from Hermione, most girls at Hogwarts are pictured in a rather >negative, stereotypical way - look at the Patil sisters and Lavender >Brown, or, for that matter, Cho Chang. Girls swoon in front of >Lockhart. Girls swoon in front of Krum. Girls adore Trelawny's silly >Divination classes. Girls are cry-babies. They are gullible, they are >giggly - JKR /almost/ makes you prefer Milicent Bulstrode. Surely >there must be a middle way between Hermione Granger and Lavender >Brown. They are not ! Harry sees them as such. Girls characterisation sounds realistic to me, not to say that girls giggle all the time, but rather than a fourteen year old struggling with his feelings and the task to invite an older girl will certainly have this impression. Likewise, Lavender looks frivolous, bt Harry does not know her at all. The public persona of Ron is kind of immature too (cares about food, jokes and Quidditch). Lavender did join the DA and did help Hagrid hold a furious Hippogriff. However, among all post I have read on the subject, there is indeed one that brings a valuable argument about JKR's inconscient view of women, or more precisely on motherhood. It can be found in Elkins' writing analysis of the Crouch family, and is quite old already. It is about the characterisation of Winky and of the late Mrs.Crouch by Crouch Junior. I will not try to sum it up because the argument is quite complex, but worth reading and much more subtle than the contraveritas article. All the best, Olivier From CoyotesChild at charter.net Thu Jan 8 18:24:54 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:24:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d614$b6d68d30$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88249 > From: Laurence > I don't know if this subject has already been talked about (I search > for sexism, nothing shows) but in this very well documented essay: > > http://contraveritas.zephy.net/funstuff/essays/women.htm > > Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist, > maybe not so much in the portraying of the characters themselves > (quoi que... see Molly Weasley) but above all from a plot driven > point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for > the advance of the villains and she gives a lot of example of this > concept, between Bertha Jorkins (pictured totally incompetent, and > who's a puppet in Voldemort hand), Ginny Weasley too naive to > recognize Voldemort in the diary, or the mother of Crouch who let an > assassin loose. > (go read her essay to understand better what I'm trying resume) > Iggy de-cloaking for a sec: I don't think the woman who wrote the article has been looking closely enough at the books. When you really think about it, most of what has happened has been facilitated by mistakes made by the men. For example: Harry - Not being willing to ask for help when he really needs it, or talk to Dumbledore, or at least McGonagall, when it would have been in his best interest. Also, by wallowing in self pity and not talking to his friends about what's bothering him. These things allow LV to get a much stronger hold on him than he would have gotten had Harry not been so self-oriented. Dumbledore - Admitted many of his mistakes in not telling Harry the truth about what happened. Also made the mistake of having Snape try to teach him Occlumency, though he knew Harry would be resistant to learning it from Snape when compared to how receptive he would have been to being taught by AD himself. Sirius - His trying to see Harry as being a replacement for James caused a number of interesting interaction problems. His insistence on escorting Harry to the Hogwarts Express was one of his biggest mistakes... as well as convincing James and Lilly to use Peter as the secret keeper instead of him. Fudge - Not being willing to see Lucius for what he is, and by ignoring the warnings from both Harry and Dumbledore has caused some of the biggest problems. For one thing, had Fudge taken his head out of the dirt, LV and his DE's would never have been able to get into the DoM. Then there's the fact that he assigned Umbridge to work as the DADA teacher at Hogwarts, and also gave in to all the "Educational Decree" bull****. Crouch Sr. - Allowing his quest to eliminate all DE's, whatever the cost, has caused his family to fall apart, and his agreeing to his wife's request to help their son escape... well... most of the events in GoF wouldn't have happened if Crouch hadn't screwed up as bad as he did with his family. Hagrid - Ok... Hagrid makes a lot of mistakes in just being Hagrid most of the time. They're not generally blatantly stupid, but come more from the fact that he's impulsive and sees "monsters" in a much different light than just about everyone else. Lockhart - An egotistical and incompetent wizard, much less as a DADA teacher. Had he not been so wrapped up in himself, and actually taken the time to be a good and qualified DADA teacher before he applied for the job, CoS would have turned out differently. For one thing, Lupin would have seen the signs and probably figured out about the basilisk... heck, even Quirrel would have been able to if he had been a good guy. Quirrel - Siding with LV, and letting him infest his body... need I say more? Mundingus - Had he stuck with his assignment to watch over Harry when he was supposed to, Harry wouldn't have had to be the one defending himself and Dudley from the Dementors, and the hearing would never have happened. Dobby - (see Hagrid, except for the monster part...) Percy - By taking so much pride in working for Crouch Sr., being blindly ambitious, and not being willing to see the strange actions of his employer as warning signs, he didn't notify anyone that something was amiss. Had he been suspicious enough and voiced a concern, especially after the things he said about the disappearance of Bertha Jorkens, then the Imperious Curse could have been detected and broken... Cedric wouldn't have died, and LV's resurrection would have been delayed until someone other than Harry could be found. (As well as the fact that LV still wouldn't be able to touch Harry...) I could go on, but I think I have made my point. The vast majority of mistakes were made by the men... not the women. (Though some of the women did make some mistakes, of course...) Just my herd of centaur's worth. Iggy McSnurd (who dons his Invisibility Cloak once again.) From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 17:54:09 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:54:09 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts (new theory, long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88250 I agree that Lily is from a muggle family. Not only is it stated as a fact numerous time by numerous people (Hagrid, Dumbledore, Snape among others), having Harry be descended on both sides from wizarding families (even with squibs in the ancestry) would hugely dilute the themes of Harry's mixed ancestry (paralleled to that of Voldemort himself) and intolerance in the wizarding world. On the other hand, I agree that Petunia knows far more about the wizarding world than living as a muggle with a witch sister (long rejected) would explain. The emotional intensity of her reaction to Dementors, as well as knowledge she quickly displays all indicate far greater and more intimate familiarity. We have been told several times of muggles unknowingly marrying witches (Seamus and Voldemort are offspring of such unions -- note that the bit about Seamus is kept and emphasized in the movie). What if Petunia was married before Vernon -- to a wizard? This would be a dreadful secret she is trying to keep. Threatening her with exposure of it would be a convincing way to force her to let Harry live with her. (Remember my last!) Presumably for plot purposes this former wizard husband is someone important to the plot. Did not JKR say that marital status of at least one member of Hogwarts faculty would be integral to the plot? Petunia is not unattractive (physically!), in fact we are told she looks a lot like Lily (except for her eyes) and presumably the resemblance would have been much stronger when she was young. Maybe Petunia is Snape's ex wife -- or Lupin's... ROLSHAN From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 8 14:24:31 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:24:31 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88251 Quoting "hermione978": << Snape as a vampire? I have a hard time buying that one.>> Quoting Marianne: << Me, too, but just because there have been so many descriptions of bat-like swooping that it seems just a tad over the top. Plus, how would that advance the story? Snape as another being looked down upon by wizard society, like werewolves, elves, giants, etc.? It seems like overkill to me.>> I completely agree, and would like to add that I would be /severely/ disappointed if Snape turned out to be a vampire. One of the most appealing aspects of him as a character (to me) is the fact that he seems in fact rather ordinary in comparison with many other characters. He wasn't (isn't?) good at Quidditch (PoA), up to the point of having difficulties flying a broomstick (OOP); he might have known many curses when at Hogwarts but James Potter easily managed to get the better of him; in PoA he is disarmed and knocked out by students; he isn't nearly as powerful as Dumbledore, who can, for example, see through Invisibility Cloaks and doesn't need a Cloak to be become invisible (whereas Snape does, PoA). In fact, Snape doesn't seem all that strong at practical magic; what he does possess is a logical mind, ambition, a willingness to work hard in order to achieve his aims. Occlumency is more related to willpower than to magic; his skill at potion brewing stems largely from the fact that he is meticulous. He is just, you know, a hard- working guy who gets thwarted all the time and is repeatedly confronted with people stronger than himself. Add to that a nasty personality and he is quite perfect; no need to go blood-sucking and all. It would make him entirely uninteresting - at least to me. Yours severely, Sigune - who was disappointed in Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers because a) Gandalf had turned from grey to white and as such became a positive bore and b) Aragorn started to act the total hero. Severus Rules! From heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 14:49:57 2004 From: heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk (heather) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:49:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: official-secrecy question Message-ID: <20040108144814.R28552@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 88252 Please - I need a quick answer for an essay that has to be in tomorrow (excellent time management, I know...). Can someone please point me to a good passage in one of the books that explains why there is such a big cover-up of wizard activity from the muggle world; the memory charms, the special ministry departments etc. I know it's something to do with wizards not wanting to be paraded as circus freaks, but I can't find a relevant passage. heatherf I found the passage saying "Bless them, they don't want to see it half the time" etc... but that doesn't quite cover the need for such cover-up efforts. heatherf -- He drops the burger, picks it up and hands it to me. "What about germs?' I say. He says 'I don't believe in germs. Germs are just a plot to sell you disinfectants and soaps.' From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 19:39:41 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:39:41 -0000 Subject: official-secrecy question In-Reply-To: <20040108144814.R28552@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heather wrote: > Please - I need a quick answer for an essay that has to be in tomorrow > (excellent time management, I know...). > > Can someone please point me to a good passage in one of the books that > explains why there is such a big cover-up of wizard activity from the > muggle world; the memory charms, the special ministry departments etc. I > know it's something to do with wizards not wanting to be paraded as circus > freaks, but I can't find a relevant passage. > heatherf > > I found the passage saying "Bless them, they don't want to see it half the > time" etc... but that doesn't quite cover the need for such cover- up > efforts. > > heatherf > > > > -- > He drops the burger, picks it up and hands it to me. "What about germs?' I > say. He says 'I don't believe in germs. Germs are just a plot to sell you > disinfectants and soaps.' Check in Sorcerer's Stone, in the "Diagon Alley" chapter when Hagrid is reading the Daily Prophet and tells Harry about the Ministry of Magic. I believe there he mentions why the WW is "best left alone". Hope it helps. Meri From as_ziggy at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:00:11 2004 From: as_ziggy at yahoo.com (as_ziggy) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:00:11 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88254 ----- Kronae: I've been enjoying the Snape-y speculations lately but has anyone taken out the old "Perseus Evans" theory for examination since OoP? (In brief- Severus Snape anagrams into Perseus Evans. Remember Perseus from mythology? He killed the Medusa with 'snakes' for hair and fell in love with Andromeda.) ----- I'm not quite sure that JKR would use another anagram since she already had for LV. It was cool the first time but if she keeps using it will kind of cheapen the effect, I think. The Perseus Evans theory sounds interesting though. I don't believe I've heard about it yet. Can you explain what exactly it is? Anna From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:23:40 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:23:40 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88255 There is a thread going on right now regarding how women (and girls) are portrayed in Sexist ways in the HP series of books. I didn't continue that thread because I don't have a direct response to anything specific that was said by anyone who posted. So, I am adding my comments to new thread. Stereotypes- Stereotypes exists because they are real. Girls DO giggle too much (ask any guy), it IS in a woman nature to be nurturing and caregiving. It IS in the nature of men to be hunters and adventures. Men bring home the bacon, and women fry it up in a pan; that's a fact of life. The problem is when we take something, a stereotype, that typifies a group of people, and we try to make it define that entire group of people, or when we take it a step farther and try to force all people in a stereotypical group to conform to the stereotype. Making a generalization is a valid way of making a point, but failing to remember that it is just that, a generalization, causes problems. Any generalization, no matter how true and valid, will break down when viewed or measure along side specifics. Sexism- Sexism, like racism, implies a form of oppression. We do see women in the HP series conforming to stereotypical female roles, BUT, and this is a very BIG BUT, we do not see them forced into those roles. Mrs. Weasley is a 'stay at home' mom, but she is not forced by society to live that role. AND, and this is a very big AND, we do not know that Mrs. Weasley IS a stay at home mom. We see only a very small window into her life, and we see it through the distorted eyes of a small boy with very little life experience. That is, very little experience in the normal life of a regular boy. It is entirely possible that Mrs. Weasley has a very full and rich life 'off-page'. However, since we have no information, we can draw few conclusions about her life. In addition, Mrs. Weasley is a very strong character. I can't think of a living soul in the wizard world who wouldn't cower, or at least cringe, in the face of Mrs. Weasley when she was in a towering rage. It's clear that Mrs. Weasley is a strong forceful woman who doesn't take any crap from anyone, big or small. She is not afraid to speak her mind, and it is clear that she, without a doubt, rules the Weasley roost. Professor McGonagall, despite being very strict, is exactly the type of teacher who gets voted 'Teacher of the Year', and she is clearly respected by all her students. Why? Because she is 'firm but fair'. She rules with an iron hand, but a hand that is tempered by fairness and equal treatment of her students. And as loud as students might grumple and complain, this is the teacher that most student maintain a firm and quiet respect for. So, my point is, that while we see women in typical women's roles, and in many case, we see women engaging in stereotypical behavior, we DO NOT, as far as I can see, see women forces into any of these roles. Women are on an equal footing in sports. Excellent players, male or female, get on the team based on skill and merit. Men and women both have a chance to be captain of a sports team. There are women on the High Court of the wizard world, there are women in many government offices, there have been women as Headmaster (Headmistress) of Hogwarts, there are many women immortalized on the Chocolate Frog Trading Cards, and there have been women in the office of Minster of Magic, the highest office in the land. And while I will admit that some women are somewhat stereotypical, so are men. I think JKR has done a masterful job of showing men and boys, just the way men and boys are in real life; we don't 'get' women, we are obssessed with sports, we take on adventurous roles, etc.... And we, men, appear equally in negative stereotypes; Mundungus, Stan Shunpike, and Earnie Prang are definitely NOT on the short list of candidates for position of Rocket Scientist at NASA. Tom of the Leaky Cauldron, as much as I like him, is probably not a genius. Boys are protrayed in a wide range of common stereotypes, because stereotypes are real, they project real aspects of real life; bully, jock, nerd, geek, freak, egg-head, wimp, ultra-cool, ultra-lame, etc.... Back to my central point, we can't make a claim of 'sexism', by JKR or by the books, unless we see a degree of oppression; unless we see that women are forces into certain role, and I just don't see that happening. Back to Stereotyping- ...or more accurately a comfortable familiarity. So many of the 'things' in the wizard world are founded in 'things' that are common, comfortable, and very familiar to us in real life. That is part of the process that JKR used to maximize our imaginations; that's part of her genius. I wouldn't call the HP series 'wordy' books; in fact, JKR writes with an amazingly compact style, but by using things was are already familiar with and with very few words, she is able to maximize how vivid her world is in our imagination. I like to use Ron Weasley as an example of this compact yet vivid style of writing. First you must ask yourself, how vivid, how detailed is the image of Ron Weasley in your mind? Can you see his face in detail, do you know his voice, his facial expression, his demeanor, his mannerism? Compare that vivid detail personal vision of Ron with what JKR told us about Ron; red hair, tall, lanky, pointed nose, big feet. Now you must ask yourself, how could you possible arrive at such a detailed mental image of Ron, when you had so little to work with? Answer: JKR has masterfully given you just enough data to stimulate your imagination into filling in Ron Weasley with great and intimate detail. Other authors that may have followed the advise of their high school and univsrsity English composition teachers, and filled in Ron's desciption in rich intricated detail could not have done the job as well as JK Rowling. JK Rowlings breaks MANY of that standard rules of English composition; (never user parenthesis), DON'T WRITE IN CAPITAL LETTERS, use rich detail to create a mental picture, etc... etc... etc.... Yet she breaks the rules to such great and masterfull effect, that we forgive her her trespasses. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From paulag5777 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:40:40 2004 From: paulag5777 at yahoo.com (Paula Gaon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? Message-ID: <20040108204040.14684.qmail@web40019.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88256 8Jan04 Iggy wrote: **Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist,...but above all from a plot driven point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for the advance of the villains...most of what has happened has been facilitated by mistakes made by the men. For example:Harry - Not being willing to ask for help when he really needs it...Dumbledore...Sirius....Fudge...Crouch Sr....Hagrid...Lockhart...Mundingus...Dobby...Percy... The vast majority ofmistakes were made by the men... not the women....** Paula now: Right on Iggy! But you didn't mention the basest of all characters in the series, Pettigrew, a man. Not that I intend to bash men, but the point is that IMHO, nobody is more disgusting tan Mr Wormtail! One can forgive incopetence or bunggling in a person. At least an incompetent person is trying to accomplish something, and very often something he/she perceives as good. But evil is something else all together. Wormtail not only betrayed, but thought no more of HIMSELF than to live as a rat for many years. In human form, he snivels and serves as a general flunkey to LV. This guy's not only evil, he must hate himself to willingly put himself in such a position. So, I fail completely to see any sexism on JKR's part, as least as far as women are concerned. ~Paula Gaon Please visit Beautiful and Fun Things: https://www.cafeshops.com/bft/218405 https://www.cafeshops.com/bft/216705 "...Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jwcpgh at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:56:58 2004 From: jwcpgh at yahoo.com (jwcpgh) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:56:58 -0000 Subject: Authorial choices (was: Why ole Snapey is a vamp ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88257 Pippin: > > Still, one might think that Snape would prefer to blame his > > upbringing rather than his nature. But what if he knew no reason > > to? What if the "child-abuse" explanation for Snape's behavior is valid, but neither Snape himself nor any one else in the WW has > > any idea of it? > Kneasy: > You look for psychology; I look for plot threads - the placement > of characters in situations from which consequences arise. > You may argue this is what you are doing; laying the psychological > groundwork for character development. Largely irrelevant, says I. > Harry was placed at the Dursleys for a *plot* reason - protection > against Voldy, not to highlight the differing effects mental trauma > have had on himself and Snape. That, if it has occured at all, is a very minor by-product and not essential to the plot. Laura: Reluctant as I am to disagree with the venerable Kneasy, I think he's trying to oppose two things that are not mutually inconsistent. When an author creates a successful work of fiction, plot and character are inextricably intertwined. The characters have to be convincing for the plot to work, and the plot can't make the characters act out of character, so to speak, or we won't believe in them. If the author only wants to tell a story without creating convincing characters, you have something like "The Da Vinci Code"-fun story, not a realistic or interesting character in the whole thing, imho. And I'm sure we could come up with examples of books in which the characters are fascinating but the plot doesn't take them anywhere. JKR uses both plot and character to great effect, I think. Her characters always stay "in character" and by doing so advance the plot. No way was Snape suddenly going to start listening to reason in the Shack-we'd never believe it, and the plot needed him not to. It might have been nice if Harry had accepted the need to be kept ignorant of some information concerning LV or the need to learn Occlumancy in OoP, but do 15 year olds forgive and forget? Not likely, folks. Sirius's death was sad and painful (to some of us, anyhow) but it was totally in character, and a direct result of behavior that was totally in character (leaving GP without DD's permission, that is). Moaning Myrtle in CoS is another great example of a character whose behavior is an essential plot device. I'm sure we can come up with many more. So I don't think Kneasy or Pippin is entirely wrong in his or her approach-it's a matter of taste and interest, I'd guess. I really don't think, though, that JKR sees her characters as mere plot devices. They are as real and important to her as they are to us- she's not the only one who cried at Sirius's death. Okay, Kneasy cheered, but...in our house, many tears were shed, and not just by the 15 year old girl. Laura, who thinks that Snape is as much a vampire as he is a drag queen (think he knows "It's Raining Men"?) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:59:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:59:14 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > "hermione978" wrote: > > Snape as a vampire? I have a hard time buying that one. > > Now me, Marianne: > Me, too, but just because there have been so many descriptions of bat- > like swooping that it seems just a tad over the top. Plus, how would > that advance the story? Snape as another being looked down upon by > wizard society, like werewolves, elves, giants, etc.? It seems like > overkill to me. > > Hermione 978: > There has > > been no evidence of this so far in the books. He is however > > connected, at least in his past, to Lord "He Who Must Not be > Named". > > It was mentioned in the fourth book I believe that he bears the > mark > > of the Death Eaters. Snape for whatever reason chose to desert the > > dark side and come to the good. > > > > At the Quidditch World Cup many a Death Eater fled when they found > > out about Lord He Who Must Not Be Named's return- out of fear from > > deserting as well as cutting a deal with the Ministry of Magic for > > their release and freedom if they repented and turned in other dark > > wizards for the Azakaban prison. Perhaps Snape is one of those who > > has made the deal with the M of M for his freedom. Perhaps he knows > > something or has a connection a bit deeper to He Who Must Not Be > > Named that has not been revealed yet in his activity. > > > > Regardless, he is a former Death Eater, now one of the Order of the > > Phoenix protecting Harry and keeping his activity confined to > > Hogwarts as potions master. In the books remaining that will come > I > > think that Snape will encounter He Who Must Not Be Named and > > possibly killed for his regarded treason to the dark arts by > turning > > good. I think we will find out why he was a Death Eater to begin > > with and why he went good. > > I sure hope we get this info. I'm not entirely convinced that Snape > is good, just that he's chosen not to throw his lot in with Vmort and > his merry band of DEs. I'm betting that we will find out that Snape > turned to the "good" side simply because he was smart enough to hedge > his bets. As Phineas Nigellus says, "We (Slytherins) will always > choose to save our own necks." > > No turning to the side of light because of unrequited love for Lily. > No sudden epiphanies about the unholy abominations of DE beliefs. > No, no, no. Those are not nearly Snape-ish enough reasons to change > sides. I think old Sev was simply smart enough to have doubts about > the wisdom of throwing in his future with some trumped-up dark lord. > After all, had Voldemort won, his loyal henchmen would still have had > to bow and scrape before him, kiss his ring or the hem of his robes > and swear fealty to him. Again, it doesn't seem to be Snape's > style. > > I think Snape took the measure of Voldemort and was cunning enough > and daring enough to start playing both sides against each other, and > eventually decided he'd have a better chance at determining his own > future and fortune if he sided with Dumbledore. > > Which still leaves open the door for betrayal, for those of you who > lean that way. Here's Snape, who has been the loyal Potions Master > for 14 years, even though he dearly wants to be the DADA instructor. > Dumbledore never gives the position to him. Snape is supposedly > trusted by Dumbledore, seems to have as much authority as McGonagal > within the school, yet he constantly seems to run up against > Dumbledore's wishes. He wants to be DADA professor, and isn't > allowed. He often seeks to rein in that reprobate, Harry Potter, and > Dumbledore constantly rewards or encourages Harry's rule-breaking > behavior. He agitates against Lupin's appointment as DADA professor, > and seeks to cast doubt on Lupin's motives in PoA, and Dumbledore > refuses to believe him. He thinks he's earned an Order of Merlin > with the capture of Sirius Black, and Sirius slips away. And, now, > although he's a member of the Order, there still seems to be this > distance between him and the others. > > If Snape indeed is still playing the part of double agent, I think he > could very well decide to opt for Voldemort's side in the upcoming > battle, especially if Dumbledore dies, and Snape believes that the > only hope for the "good" side rests on the undisciplined, headstrong > shoulders of Harry Potter, who, in Snape's eyes, is still no match > for Voldemort. > > Marianne Except for one small thing--that life debt that Snape still owes to James and apparently can't escape unless he really saves Harry. Also, I very much doubt that Snape underestimates Harry. He's seen him accidentally cast a blocking spell (Protego) during occlumency lessons and he's the one who guessed that Harry was a Parseltongue and confirmed his own theory by having Draco cast Serpensortia. He's also aware of all of Harry's escapes, some of them narrrow, from Voldemort and how much he owes to luck and how much to his own abilities (regardless of whether they're inherited, acquired, or part of the Voldemort scar package). No, Snape is astute, and however Harry may underestimate and misunderstand him, I doubt very much that he underestimates Harry. He does know, especially after MoM, that Harry isn't ready to face LV *yet,* but I think he knows that at some point, he *will* be ready. Carol, who thinks that Snape is helping Harry to reach that point and that everything he's taught Harry, from bezoars to occlumency, will come in handy in the battle against LV From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 8 21:29:15 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:29:15 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88259 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > So, one more time. Who is Tracey Davis and how do we know that he or > she is a half blood? > Geoff: Just catching up - this may already have been said. The link given by Steve in message 88205 shows Tracey Davis as having a star. which apparently indicates a half-blood. In passing, I would assume Tracey Davis is a girl. All the Traceys I have met up with in teaching and young people's work have been female. From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 21:39:15 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:39:15 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as a Vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040109103513.027e9a30@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88260 At 06:19 8/01/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Anne wrote: Okay...I've been staying out of this ever since I spoke my >viewpoint about a week ago, mostly because I haven't had a chance to go >re-read the books and start gathering canonical evidence for either way, >but the exchange between Kneasy and Filo struck me funny...and what struck >me funny was those darn lollipops everyone keeps mentioning in Honeydukes. > >Not arguing for or against here, but a few things to point out-- > >1) In a business sense, keeping the lollipops for one or two local >vampires in a container that obviously carries a lot of them is rather >foolish from a financial POV...unless, the product is highly >popular--which would indicate, I would think, that there has got to be a >healthy vamp and/or hag population around somewhere (And not just Snape if >he is one). Otherwise, it would behoove the storekeeper to make them >available as a 'special order' item instead--if for no other reason than >because the stock would likely go bad before it could all be purchased >(and I suspect that even with spells to keep them 'fresh', those >blood-suckers would go bad fairly quickly, simply because blood has a >shelf life of just about nothing--if you all want, I'll go ask the guys in >the hospital lab here just how long the stuff lasts out of the body). >That's a strictly business sense thing, but Rowling seems to have her >pulse on RL issues like that and will incorporate them into her writing, >which is why I brought it up. > >2) (Still not really 'for' or 'against' here, but this is the thought that >got me started on the email). >Can any of you, even the ones who are all for the Snape as a Vamp theory >honestly imagine him walking around with a lollipop stuck in his mouth? >Seriously? At least not without giggling madly at the thought first, that it. > >Talk about ruining your reputation...;) > >Anne >(Not enough coffee and feeling silly) Tanya now. I was giving this some thought yesterday. I posted a bit on the economic side of the store stocks as well. But before I decide one way or the other about this subject. I want to see what type of vampires JKR has in her series. But as far as I can see now. I cannot imagine that Snape could be an undead vampire that would be such a let down. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 8 21:47:24 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:47:24 -0000 Subject: official-secrecy question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: Meri: > Check in Sorcerer's Stone, in the "Diagon Alley" chapter when Hagrid > is reading the Daily Prophet and tells Harry about the Ministry of > Magic. I believe there he mentions why the WW is "best left alone". > Hope it helps. Geoff: The relevant bit appears to be - "'There's a Ministry of Magic?' Harry asked before he could stop himself. 'Course,' said Hagrid. 'They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister o' course but he'd never leave Hogwarts so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bungler if ever there was one. So he pelts Dumbledore with owls every morning askin' fer advice.' 'But what does a Ministry of Magic /do/?' 'Well, their main job is to keep it from the Muggles that there's still witches an' wizards up an' down the country.' 'Why?' '/Why/? Blimey, Harry, everyone'd be wanting magic solutions to their problems. Nah, we're best left alone.'" (PS "Diagon Alley" p.51 UK edition) From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 21:07:02 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:07:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perseus Evans theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88262 >Anna says: I'm not quite sure that JKR would use another anagram since she >already had for LV. It was cool the first time but if she keeps >using it will kind of cheapen the effect, I think. > >The Perseus Evans theory sounds interesting though. I don't believe >I've heard about it yet. Can you explain what exactly it is? The Perseus Evans theory is this: if you rearrange the letters of the name 'Severus Snape', they form the name 'Perseus Evans'. This name uncannily fits the naming pattern that Rowling has established in her books. She's stated in interviews that Lily's surname is Evans, and of course there's that reference to a 10 year old boy who Dudley Dursley beats up in the 1st chapter of Order of the Phoenix named Mark Evans (will we see him at the Hogwarts Sorting Ceremony in book 6? Who knows?). We don't know what connection Mark Evans has to Harry Potter or Lily Evans-Potter, but we all know that Rowling doesn't assign names or give toss-off details like that randomly, so it's certain that this will have greater meaning later in the series. But I digress somewhat. Returning to Perseus Evans, the first name Perseus comes from a Greek myth (and we know how classical Greek/Roman names are popular ones for Rowling to use), the same one to involve the character Andromeda. Andromeda, of course, is the given name of Tonks' mother -- so there's speculation that there might be a connection there as well (some kind of tragic unrequited love, perhaps?). Giving credence to the idea that perhaps Snape has changed his name is the sequence in Order of the Phoenix where Harry looks into the pensieve containing Snape's memories and sees student-aged taking his OWLs and being tormented by James Potter. We don't see what name Snape writes down on his exams, and later on he's referred to by the teasing nickname 'Snivellus' when he runs into the Marauders outside. In other words, we have no contemporary record of him being called 'Severus' or 'Snape' during his Hogwarts years. 'Snivellus' (one who snivels/is snivelly) could be an equally pejorative term for someone named Severus or Perseus, since both names bear the -us ending. Well, of course there are a number of ramifications to deal with, if this theory is correct: 1) What caused Perseus/Severus to change his name? Does it have something to do with his departure from the Death Eaters and joining Dumbledore & the Order of the Phoenix? 2) Given the precedent we have for Tom Marvolo Riddle/I am Lord Voldemort, is there some kind of magic inherent in anagrams which is the reason for Perseus Evans becoming Severus Snape (as opposed to Perseus Evans becoming Bob Jones or some other name)? 3) Why hasn't anyone made reference to the fact that Snape hasn't always been known as Snape, before now? It's not like he's a stranger in these parts -- there are still a number of Snape's yearmates and former teachers around who would know what his original name was. Or are they somehow part of a conspiracy to not call him by that old name? 4) Is Snape/Evans related to Lily Evans in some way? It's doubtful that they'd be brother & sister, if there is a connection since they were in the same year at Hogwarts. And Petunia has never mentioned anything about having a brother who was a 'freak' like Lily was. It's more likely that he'd be a cousin, if he's related at all. But again, it's almost unthinkable that Rowling would give two characters (three, if you include Mark Evans) the same surname and not have them related, since that would cause a great deal of confusion. 4a) How is Perseus Evans related to the mysterious young Mark Evans -- Father? Uncle? It's well documented that Snape didn't like James Potter at all. However, if he was related to Lily Evans-Potter, that might be another reason for his seemingly paradoxical attitude towards Harry Potter (appearing to actively dislike/hate him, and yet taking a lot of trouble to watch out for him) -- if Harry represented a union between a member of Snape's family and someone he really, really abhorred. A sticky bit in this theory, however, is the reaction that Snape has to Lily Evans calling off James from hanging Snape upside down and showing off his icky grey undergarments -- he calls her a mudblood, and Lily seems extremely taken aback by this. On one hand, Rowling has guided the readers for a majority of this series to believe that Lily Evans is a muggle-born witch (i.e., a mudblood). But the new revelations that Petunia Evans-Dursley knows more about the wizarding world than we expected now causes readers to wonder if perhaps the Evans family is one which was originally magical, and then went into an extended phase of squib-dom, even to the point where it was believed that they were permanently muggles, and the magic had completely died out (this would explain why Lily & Petunia's parents had so gleefully exclaimed "We have a witch in the family!" in HP & the Philosopher's/Sorceror's Stone). But being the child of squib parents is somewhat different from being the child of muggle parents, which might be the reason why it surprises Lily to have Snape address her as a mudblood. And of course, if he's related to her in some way, it would be similarly odd for him to call her this, since he's tarred with the same brush so to speak. So! I know that was a rather long response, but that's intricasies of the Perseus Evans theory, for your enjoyment. Now, do I believe this theory is true? I think the jury is still out on that. It's a very interesting theory, and one with a lot of depth to it as you can see. On the other hand, I'm skeptical about most reader-theories about the books because they often turn out to be wrong. Rowling is an extremely clever woman, and it never ceases to delight me that what she's dreamed up is far better than most of the fan-speculation plot ideas. So in that manner, I partly agree with Anna about 'cheapening the effect' of the TMR/IaLV anagram by employing the same trick with SS/PE. On the other hand, if Rowling makes this a second example of a type of tricky concealing magic (remember, very few people know that Tom Riddle became Voldemort), then that might play against the 'cheapening' factor by showing it to be a 'cool' magical discipline. Hopefully, all of this will be answered in the 6th book! -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 22:34:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:34:35 -0000 Subject: HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88263 Sigune wrote: > > Much as I enjoy reading HP, JKR's depiction of women characters does > irritate me more than once. As the author of the essay you mention > points out, it is usually women who do stupid things, and (as far as > I am concerned) they are often pictured in a more unsympathetic way > than those men who seem less than bright. Or compare a character like > Umbridge to other (male) cruel, nasty or evil characters in the > books. I bet that while the Malfoys and Snape have their admirers, no- > one will feel called upon to start an Umbridge fan listing. What about Filch? He doens't seem to have any redeeming qualities (unless we feel some reluctant pity for him as a Squib)? Does he have any fans? I'd say that I doubt it, but I'm afraid of being pelted with virtual dung bombs by his admirers. Carol From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jan 8 22:43:09 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:43:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88264 In a message dated 1/8/2004 4:44:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, Geoff (gbannister10 at aol.com) writes: >In passing, I would assume Tracey Davis is a girl. All the Traceys I >have met up with in teaching and young people's work have been female. ************************* Sherrie: Tracey has an open circle in the gender column - the same as the other known/obvious female characters. I'm just puzzled by the reversed pentacle... (I do know one male Tracey - dated him for a while... ) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 23:14:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:14:52 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88265 "Julie Stevenson" wrote: > > Giving credence to the idea that perhaps Snape has changed his name is the > sequence in Order of the Phoenix where Harry looks into the pensieve > containing Snape's memories and sees student-aged taking his OWLs and being > tormented by James Potter. We don't see what name Snape writes down on his > exams, and later on he's referred to by the teasing nickname 'Snivellus' > when he runs into the Marauders outside. > > In other words, we have no contemporary record of him being called 'Severus' > or 'Snape' during his Hogwarts years. > Actually, we do. MWPP were teenagers when they created the Marauder's Map and presumably the handwriting that appears on the map in response to Snape's command to "yield the information you conceal" is from that teenage perspective, not that of the adult selves who had long since lost possession of the map. The boys in the map (or their magically captured personas) know exactly who Snape is, but they're surprised that the Severus Snape they knew became a Hogwarts teacher. I can quote the passage if need be. It's in GoF, chapter 14, "Snape's Grudge" (pp. 286-87, Am. ed.). Carol Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 8 23:17:34 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:17:34 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Purebloods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: Geoff: > >In passing, I would assume Tracey Davis is a girl. All the Traceys I > >have met up with in teaching and young people's work have been female. > Sherrie: > > Tracey has an open circle in the gender column - the same as the other > known/obvious female characters. I'm just puzzled by the reversed pentacle... > > (I do know one male Tracey - dated him for a while... ) Geoff: Silly question - was that Tracey or Tracy; isn't the Thunderbird pilot without an "e". I wondered if it was like the Leslie/Lesley pairing. I'm inclined to agree with someone else's comment today that Tracey Davis' data has been changed from a square to a star and it appears to have been overwritten quite heavily to make it clear. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jan 8 23:29:53 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:29:53 -0000 Subject: official-secrecy question In-Reply-To: <20040108144814.R28552@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heather wrote: > Can someone please point me to a good passage in one of the books that explains why there is such a big cover-up of wizard activity from the > muggle world; the memory charms, the special ministry departments etc. > There is a mention at the beginning of Fantastic Beasts about protecting the magical community from witch-burnings. (However, in one of the books in the regular series, it is stated that burning at the stake has no effect on a real witch or wizard because they perform a flame-freezing charm and aren't injured.) Hope it's not too late in the day for you. :) Allie From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 07:35:05 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:35:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? References: Message-ID: <001101c3d683$19dc1760$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88268 > Sigune wrote: > > > > Much as I enjoy reading HP, JKR's depiction of women > characters does > > irritate me more than once. As the author of the essay you mention > > points out, it is usually women who do stupid things, and (as far as > > I am concerned) they are often pictured in a more unsympathetic way > > than those men who seem less than bright. Or compare a character like > > Umbridge to other (male) cruel, nasty or evil characters in the > > books. I bet that while the Malfoys and Snape have their admirers, no- > > one will feel called upon to start an Umbridge fan listing. > > K I don't suppose there are many Pettigrew or Voldemort fan listings out there either for that matter. There are evil men and evil women, there are evil and yet strangely compelling men (Malfoy) and women (Bellatrix), there are stupid men (Crabbe and Goyle, both vintages) and stupid women (uh, OK Millicent is the only one I can actually think of here) etc etc. I don't think JKR's portrayal of the characters demonstrates any sexism at all, but unfortunately the only way to totally avoid accusations of sexism is to make all the women virtual saints (and she'd better darn well give them all powerful jobs at the same time) - which is in itself incredibly sexist. Personally I think Umbridge goes quite a way to destroying any accusations of sexism since she's a woman in a high position of power and a non-stereotypical job. Up until OoP I did wonder if the WW itself was slightly sexist (wouldn't be surprising since it seems to be behind the times compared to the muggle world) since the women we saw were all in nurturing professions (teacher, nurse etc) or housewives - however OoP destroyed that idea with Umbridge and the mention of a past female MoM. I did think the books lacked well developed female characters, but that's just a personal preference, rather than an accusation of sexism, and one I've stated before. I felt Hermione was the only fleshed out female character, but now we have a much more detailed Ginny, a kick-ass Minerva, a quirky Tonks and a Luna I'd like to drop off a cliff - but hey I said I wanted more developed female characters and that's what I got so I shouldn't moan about hating one of them :) K From sollecks970 at aol.com Fri Jan 9 01:10:35 2004 From: sollecks970 at aol.com (fawkes970) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:10:35 -0000 Subject: the missing godparent Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88269 i was thinking today about the hp3 movie premiere (US) and that i would be going as sirius. so as i thought about it i was thinking maybe since i was harry's godfather one of my other friends would go as his godmother when i reazlized: who is harry's godmother? why has JKR not mentioned his godmother? if he has a godfather then he must have a godmother as well should he? just throwing this out there, if its already been posted please inform me. ~ Fawkes From amani at charter.net Fri Jan 9 01:51:55 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:51:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the missing godparent References: Message-ID: <001901c3d653$29632960$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88270 Fawkes: i was thinking today about the hp3 movie premiere (US) and that i would be going as sirius. so as i thought about it i was thinking maybe since i was harry's godfather one of my other friends would go as his godmother when i reazlized: who is harry's godmother? why has JKR not mentioned his godmother? if he has a godfather then he must have a godmother as well should he? just throwing this out there, if its already been posted please inform me. Taryn: It's certainly not necessary. Within my family, I have a godfather and a godmother, two of my brothers only have one godfather, and one of my brothers has two godfathers. (For the record, we're Episcopalian AKA the Anglican Church AKA Church of England.) This subject has come up numerous times before and, while it's certainly very possible Harry has a godmother, I just want to stress that it's not NECESSARY. (If he does have a godmother...well, where is she?) ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:13:01 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:13:01 -0000 Subject: official-secrecy question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heather wrote: > > Please - I need a quick answer for an essay that has to be in > tomorrow > > (excellent time management, I know...). > > > > Can someone please point me to a good passage in one of the books > that > > explains why there is such a big cover-up of wizard activity from > the > > muggle world; the memory charms, the special ministry departments > etc. I > > know it's something to do with wizards not wanting to be paraded > as circus > > freaks, but I can't find a relevant passage. > > heatherf > > You may also want to read GOF when they were having to keep the Quidditch World Cup secret from muggles. I seem to remember a rather extensive conversation there (e.g., the man from whom they were renting space for tents, he and his family being toyed with by the Death Eaters, etc.). Julie From hermione978 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:14:19 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:14:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts (new theory, long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040108201419.93360.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88272 What are you basing your marriage theory on? Which book and chapter? I don't recall anything about marriage in this aspect being mentioned in the books or otherwise. I do think however that Petunia is a squibb. I have thought that since I read book 5 and had a hunch only before. I think that she knows more than she wanted to let on, perhaps one or both of her parents were wizards? Perhaps from watching and listening to Lily? I don't think she was ever married before, there is no evidence in the books to support that. She is key somehow, maybe book six will reveal more. Note, that if she were a squib, she would not have been invited to attend Hogwarts as squibs are not magically trained, only muggle born with abilities or pure blood. Filtch is at Hogwarts, and as book 3 reveals, is a Squib working in cover at the school which is why he resents the students there so much. I don't think they are connected, but it is an interesting point about the squib. The other squib is Mrs. Figg who lives in Harry's neighborhood. I found it interesting that a squibb would be part of Dumbledores plan to protect and watch over Harry seeing how squibs have no magical abilities. Perhaps Figg plays a key role with something we don't yet know beyond this as well. Just theory, but only JK Rowling really knows for sure..at this point. rolshan2000 wrote: I agree that Lily is from a muggle family. Not only is it stated as a fact numerous time by numerous people (Hagrid, Dumbledore, Snape among others), having Harry be descended on both sides from wizarding families (even with squibs in the ancestry) would hugely dilute the themes of Harry's mixed ancestry (paralleled to that of Voldemort himself) and intolerance in the wizarding world. On the other hand, I agree that Petunia knows far more about the wizarding world than living as a muggle with a witch sister (long rejected) would explain. The emotional intensity of her reaction to Dementors, as well as knowledge she quickly displays all indicate far greater and more intimate familiarity. We have been told several times of muggles unknowingly marrying witches (Seamus and Voldemort are offspring of such unions -- note that the bit about Seamus is kept and emphasized in the movie). What if Petunia was married before Vernon -- to a wizard? This would be a dreadful secret she is trying to keep. Threatening her with exposure of it would be a convincing way to force her to let Harry live with her. (Remember my last!) Presumably for plot purposes this former wizard husband is someone important to the plot. Did not JKR say that marital status of at least one member of Hogwarts faculty would be integral to the plot? Petunia is not unattractive (physically!), in fact we are told she looks a lot like Lily (except for her eyes) and presumably the resemblance would have been much stronger when she was young. Maybe Petunia is Snape's ex wife -- or Lupin's... ROLSHAN ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 02:40:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:40:06 -0000 Subject: the missing godparent In-Reply-To: <001901c3d653$29632960$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" wrote: > Fawkes: > i was thinking today about the hp3 movie premiere (US) and that i > would be going as sirius. so as i thought about it i was thinking > maybe since i was harry's godfather one of my other friends would go > as his godmother when i reazlized: who is harry's godmother? why has > JKR not mentioned his godmother? if he has a godfather then he must > have a godmother as well should he? just throwing this out there, if > its already been posted please inform me. > > Taryn: > It's certainly not necessary. Within my family, I have a godfather and a godmother, two of my brothers only have one godfather, and one of my brothers has two godfathers. (For the record, we're Episcopalian AKA the Anglican Church AKA Church of England.) This subject has come up numerous times before and, while it's certainly very possible Harry has a godmother, I just want to stress that it's not NECESSARY. (If he does have a godmother...well, where is she?) > Speaking also as a former Episcopalian and assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the practice is the same in the Anglican Church from which it branched off, the usual practice is (or used to be when I was a child) to have two godparents of the same sex as the child and one of the opposite sex, so I had two godmothers and one godfather; Harry would have the opposite. However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that they celebrate Christmas and Easter and have monks and friars among their ghosts, or even that they use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my soul!" (both from th Leaky Cauldron scene in SS/PS). Christianity in all its variants, including the Anglican Church, is a Muggle institution, and it doesn't appear that Witches and Wizards attend church. I guess a secularized Christianity has permeated their culture as it has permeated British Muggle culture, but still, godfathers (and -mothers) are a religious tradition, not a secular one. Carol, who knows that JKR can depict her world in any way she likes, but nevertheless finds the religious elements strange. (I'm not anti-Christian; I just think the WW and the RW should be a bit more distinct.) From chicabsb2000 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 20:49:02 2004 From: chicabsb2000 at hotmail.com (mrosadavila) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:49:02 -0000 Subject: Can Harry Potter Predict his Future??????? (Book #4 -Goblet of Fire) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88274 Thursday, January 08, 2004 Hi: I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet. But I was wondering what everyone though about the fact that Harry Potter predicts his future correctly in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book #4). Well in Chapter Fourteen (14) Harry and Ron are supposed to predict what was going to happen to them in the next week using the book "Unfogging the Future" for Divination class. But because of all there homework and stuff, they decide to "fake it". But does Harry really fake it? Harry starts inventing all kinds of things that are supposedly going to happen to him in the next week. But when you keep reading the book, if you keep in mind those predictions, it??s obvious that there true, they don't happen in just one week, but they occurred little by little in the school year. Just for those that don??t remember them here they go: 1. "Okay... on Monday, I will be in danger of - er - burns.". [Further on in the book, Harry has to fight Dragons in the first task of the Triwizard Tournament, which explains his danger of being burned.] ---------- 2. "Lose a treasured possession," said Harry, who was flicking through Unfogging the Future for ideas. "Good one," said Ron [This one got me a little confused, because the way it's written, its like Harry suggested it to Ron. But Harry loses a treasured possession in the second task, he loses Ron at the bottom of the lake, were he has to save him to win.] ---------- 3."Why don't you get stabbed in the back by someone you thought was a friend" [This one was suggested to Harry by Ron. After Harry's name is pulled out of the Goblet of Fire, you could say Ron stabbed him in the back, because he doesn't believe that Harry when he says that he didn??t put his name in there.] ---------- 4. "And on Wednesday, I think I'll come off worse in a fight." [Harry does come out worse in a fight, well in this case in the second task; he is the last one to leave the lake.] ------------ 5. Harry laid down his quill too, having just finished predicting his own death by decapitation. [This prediction doesn't come true obviously, because Harry is still alive. This one is mentioned a few paragraphs after the others. I don't remember at the end of the book, Harry almost being decapitated by Lord Voldemort, or anyone else. So I don't know were that one comes into the book at any time.] That's were my big confusion kicks in, is Harry Potter going to die at the end of the books by being decapitated by Lord Voldemort? And can Harry predict his future? Thanks for listening (reading), please leave a comment, I want to know what other people think. Migdalia From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 02:45:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:45:48 -0000 Subject: official-secrecy question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heather wrote: > > > Please - I need a quick answer for an essay that has to be in > > tomorrow > > > (excellent time management, I know...). > > > > > > Can someone please point me to a good passage in one of the > books > > that > > > explains why there is such a big cover-up of wizard activity > from > > the > > > muggle world; the memory charms, the special ministry > departments > > etc. I > > > know it's something to do with wizards not wanting to be paraded > > as circus > > > freaks, but I can't find a relevant passage. > > > heatherf > > > > You may also want to read GOF when they were having to keep the > Quidditch World Cup secret from muggles. I seem to remember a > rather extensive conversation there (e.g., the man from whom they > were renting space for tents, he and his family being toyed with by > the Death Eaters, etc.). > Julie Along those same lines, Hogwarts and Durmstrang (and possibly Beauxbatons) are hidden from Muggle eyes, possibly because teaching kids how to make a cushion fly across a room or how to brew a shrinking potion is not an ideal education by Muggle standards. Where are the math, science, and English classes? If I were Dumbledore, I wouldn't want the Muggles to find Hogwarts, either! Carol From helen at odegard.com Fri Jan 9 02:53:49 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:53:49 -0800 Subject: Knight 2 King In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c3d65b$cf43a230$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88276 Theory: Knight2King Character(s): Ron, Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, Neville, Draco, the Longbottms, Sirius, Remus, Lily, James, Bellatrix, Voldemort, Peter... EVERYONE Artifact(s): The chess set and chess game from PS/SS Thesis Statement: The chess game the trio plays at the end of PS/SS is a metaphor for the Second War between the forces of good led by Albus Dumbledore, and the forces of evil led by Lord Voldemort. It predicts future events as well as sheds light on the past and present. Combines the Chess theory and the Ron is Dumbledore theory (REDHEAD ALWAYS). Abstract: The role of the chess game in PS/SS appears to be a metaphor for the Second War. What might it mean in the context of the series as a whole? Who are/were the various pieces, and what do they stand for? Our biggest conundrum was how to reconcile the fact that Ron Weasley appears to play *two* roles in the game. In the following essays, we set out to: --- Interpret the various plays in the game and how they relate to past and future events in the Harry Potter series. --- Match up chess pieces to characters, based on their roles and relationships they play throughout the series. --- Explain how Ron Weasley actually plays two pieces simultaneously in the game. Supporting evidence: http://homepage.mac.com/ixchelmala/Knight2King/Personal51.html Notes: This theory has been brought to you by the letter lizardlaugh and the number ixchelmala and their respective live journal friends lists! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 03:00:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:00:04 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts (new theory, long) In-Reply-To: <20040108201419.93360.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kelly Penn wrote: > I do think however that Petunia is a squibb. I have thought that since I read book 5 and had a hunch only before. I think that she knows more than she wanted to let on, perhaps one or both of her parents were wizards? Perhaps from watching and listening to Lily? I don't think she was ever married before, there is no evidence in the books to support that. She is key somehow, maybe book six will reveal more. I agree that Petunia will play a key role, but not as a Squib who gains her powers. We're told over and over again that Lily is a Muggle-born and Petunia is a Muggle. If one parent were a witch or wizard, Lily would be a half blood, not a muggle-born. Apparently, she'd be a half blood even if one of her parents was a muggle-born witch or wizard and the other a pureblood (Harry's situation). And again, since only magical parents can have squib children and Lily and Petunia's parents are Muggles, Petunia can't be a Squib. My candidate for the person who learns magic late in life is Mrs. Figg, an undoubted Squib. As for what Petunia will do, I have no doubt seh'll surprise us. She's been suppressing a lot of family history, which has burst out of her own two occasions (SS/PS when Hagrid arrives on the island and OoP when she hears about the Dementors and receives the Howler). More is coming, I don't doubt. But it will be knowledge of Harry's family history, not magic, that she'll provide us IMO. Carol From erikal at magma.ca Fri Jan 9 04:23:08 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:23:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: HP Pair-Ups Message-ID: <011b01c3d668$49943b60$6fa31a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 88278 Andrew wrote: >In OOTP, when Ron first meets Luna, Ron >tells a joke. >"Everyone laughed, but nobody laughed >harder than Luna Lovegood. >She let out a scream of mirth that >cauesed Hedqig to wake up and >flap her wings indignantly and >Crookshanks to leap up into the >luggage rack, hissing. She laughed so >hard that her magazine slipped >out of her grasp, slid down her legs, >and onto the floor. > 'That was funny!' > Her prominent eyes swam with tears >as she gasped for breath, >staring at Ron." >This sounds like a typical girl trying >to make a good impression on >a guy she obviously is into. Przemyslaw Plaskowicki countered: >I just couldn't add here similar quote >from the end of the OOP (the 38th >chapter). >"Hermione and Ginny muffled their >laughter in the bedclothes. >`Speaking of centaurs,' said Hermione, >when she had recovered a little, >`who's Divination >teacher now? Is Firenze staying?'" I think, however that the point about the Luna quote is that she laughs louder and longer than everyone else, that her response seems disproportionate. Yes, Hermione laughs at Ron's joke in the second passage, but so does Ginny. Hermione's reaction isn't exceptional; Luna's is. Andrew wrote: >We could argue over these points until >the 6th book is >published, but the vicious love polygon >will be nearly impossible to >predict until JKR enravels yet another >of her mysteries. People discussed shipping for the three years between GoF and OoP, so I'm sure they will continue to do so until the next book as well. And they will probably continue right until book seven is published (unless of course there's a rash of underage weddings in the sixth book ;) But hey, isn't that part of the fun? Though I'm very attached to my ship, I'm always curious about the others' arguments. I find it fascinating that though we all read the same words on the page, we sometimes seem to be reading completely different books. Just my two knuts Erika (Wolfraven) For friendly shipping discussion join us at The Great Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGreatDebate [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 8 22:04:13 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:04:13 -0000 Subject: Slytherin purebloods? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88279 I think Tracey used to be a male name, before the girls took it up. Mr. Tupman in The Pickwick Papers has the Christian name of Tracey. Sylvia (who also wondered who the heck Tracey was) From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 03:18:56 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:18:56 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88280 filoroll wrote: Either way, it could work. Snape can either be unaffected by garlic If there was garlic in Quirrel's turban or there never was any garlic in the turban, just Voldie hitching a ride. vmonte responds: It would be funny if Quirrell put garlic in his turbin to fight off Voldemort's possesion. Maybe the real Vampire is Voldemort (as others have mentioned). Maybe Quirrell wasn't a willing participant in his possesion? For example: Quirrell's confrontation with Harry at the end of book 1 is very peculiar. Harry tells Quirrell that he had heard him crying in a classroom(?) and Quirrell responds that he sometimes has trouble following his master's orders (not exact wording). I wonder if Quirrell was forced into submission by Voldemort? Wasn't Voldemort very weak when he initially took over Quirrell's body? Perhaps spells (or potions) where needed (early on) to keep Quirrell submissive while Voldy's possesion was taking hold. The classroom scene may have been one of the times that Quirrell attempted to break through V's possesion? Maybe Quirrell was doing the counter curse and Snape was actually cursing Harry during the Quidditch game? Regardless, it's obvious that by the end of book 1, Quirrell is taken over completely by Voldemort (except for the moment Q shows fear in his face). I wonder what side Snape is talking about when has asks Quirrell were his loyalties lie? I realize that at the end of book 1 Quirrell sets the record straight about Snape, telling Harry that Snape is on DD's side? Why would Voldemort do this? Why exonerate Snape if Snape is your enemy? It's also interesting because Tom Riddle tells Harry (in book 2) that Ginny was forced into submission. Riddle also clears Ginny of any guilt. Interesting... From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 03:43:16 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:43:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: New Rogue Elf & Happy to Serve Lord Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88281 New Rogue Elf & Happy to Serve Lord Voldemort To the tune of New Rochelle & Happy To Keep His Dinner Warm from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Dedicated to Gail B. THE SCENE: 12 Grimmauld Place. HARRY is introduced to the Black family domestic help by RON and Hermione. HARRY: Who's Kreacher? RON: The house-elf who lives here. Nutter. Never met one like him . (music) New rogue elf, new rogue elf He's the staff at this mansion so glum Dobby may remind us of Jar-Jar But Kreacher is strictly Gollum. He mutters His utter Hatred of all things DEs revile He isn't so nice, this new rogue elf, He's sure ain't no SPEW poster child (spoken) C'mon let's go to dinner, I'm starving .. (EXIT the TRIO, leaving KREACHER behind with a sinister gleam in his eye.) KREACHER (spoken): Unnatural little beasts they are, oh how my Mistress would cry, if Kreacher's Mistress saw him in such company, what would she say. .and what else would Kreacher's Mistress say if she knew that Kreacher had taken up singing filksongs, oh the degradation of it, the shame Key of E-Flat, if you will . (music) I'll be so happy to serve Lord Voldemort In the third person with cursin' Happy to help his total war As Mistress eerily screams them all down I'll be there, Hoping to help advance his cause Perhaps through spying, And lying Hoping to say "Dear Sirius, You're dead meat!" Once You-Know-Who Comes to town . I'm forced to obey traitor filth I reject, To mask my true self Through a passively-plus-aggressive disrespect. I long to betray ev'ry Auror in this town Who wear Phoenix gowns I'm hoping ..To save the family photographs Which I'll deposit In closet Happy to serve Lord Voldemort As Mistress eerily screams them all down . Eerily screams them all down! (end music) (spoken) Nasty little bit of boring filksong, oh my poor list elves, what would say if they read Kreacher's dreadful attempts at this most inferior of artforms, oh, the disgrace of it all, and no RealAudio or MIDI file either, oh the disgrace .. (Exit KREACHER. Mother Black begins screaming) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 03:50:31 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:50:31 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88282 vmonte writes: Just a thought here. Why did Salazar put the COS in a girl's bathroom? Was he specifically waiting for a female heir to open the chamber? Was the choice of Ginny (instead of another Weasley) random or intentional? Are the Weasley's descendants of Slytherin? And have they made the choice (like Harry did) to be more like Gryffindor? vmonte From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 03:50:41 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:50:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perseus Evans theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88283 > > Julie wrote: In other words, we have no contemporary record of him >being called >'Severus' or 'Snape' during his Hogwarts years. > >Carol wrote: Actually, we do. MWPP were teenagers when they created the >Marauder's >Map and presumably the handwriting that appears on the map in response >to Snape's command to "yield the information you conceal" is from that >teenage perspective, not that of the adult selves who had long since >lost possession of the map. The boys in the map (or their magically >captured personas) know exactly who Snape is, but they're surprised >that the Severus Snape they knew became a Hogwarts teacher. I can >quote the passage if need be. It's in GoF, chapter 14, "Snape's >Grudge" (pp. 286-87, Am. ed.). I'm familiar with the sequence you're referring to, Carol. And yes, it does appear that the name Snape is familiar to the Marauder's Map...but is it? Or is it just as Lupin notes, that the parchment is charmed to respond with insults based on currently-viewed details about the person attempting to extract information without the password? Prisoner of Azkaban, ch.14 p.288 (American hardback edition) -- "Full of Dark Magic?" he [Lupin] repeated mildly. "Do you really think so, Severus? It looks to me as though it [The Marauder's Map] is merely a piece of parchment that insults anybody who reads it." I'd think that if there was more personal information known by the Map about Snape from the past, that old nickname 'Snivellus' might have been used in the map's messages. Given that the Map refers to Snape's large nose, being an ugly git, needing to wash his hair and is an idiot, it seems that the Map seems to know him from the past (particularly in that statement where it expresses astonishment that Snape would be a professor). But does it? Or does the Map have the ability to draw its information in order to insult from the current holder, and it's not pre-programmed to recognize Snape? I think it might be argued either way. This is just one of those things that we don't have enough information about yet, to speak conclusively. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 04:03:30 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:03:30 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Love Goat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88284 The Love Goat To the tune of the theme from singularly dopey sitcom The Love Boat (which may be heard here) http://www.geocities.com/tmkulich/stubby2.html Dedicated with fear and trembling to Haggridd THE SCENE: ABERFORTH DUMBLEDORE addresses charges that he has well, you know .. ABERFORTH Goats, the final taboo: I adore Ev'ry doe revue, And goats, both hard and soft-core Let them bray To make this breakthrough The Love Goat Proving mere cash just can't match cashmere The Love Goat Let me observe each hircine career I will cast all my charm spells Some call inappropriate . It's Gruffffffff! Billy Goat Gruff - It's Grufffffff! (16-Ton weight falls on ABERFORTH) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Just remember: Goat Song means tragedy! (e.g., the greatest of all Goat-oriented novels, John Barth's Giles Goat-Boy, in which the ultimate epithet is: Flunk You!) From elfundeb at comcast.net Fri Jan 9 05:49:08 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:49:08 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes, Sexism and Literary Doubles (WAS: HP, inconscient sexism from JKR? In-Reply-To: <001101c3d683$19dc1760$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurence" wrote: > I don't know if this subject has already been talked about (I search > for sexism, nothing shows) but in this very well documented essay: > > http://contraveritas.zephy.net/funstuff/essays/women.htm > > Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist, > maybe not so much in the portraying of the characters themselves > (quoi que... see Molly Weasley) but above all from a plot driven > point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for > the advance of the villains and she gives a lot of example of this > concept, between Bertha Jorkins (pictured totally incompetent, and > who's a puppet in Voldemort hand), Ginny Weasley too naive to > recognize Voldemort in the diary, or the mother of Crouch who let an > assassine loose. While I do think there is a form of sexism in the books, I don't think it appears in the form suggested by Lena F; I'm not sure how Harry the angsty teenager's refusal to attempt to close his mind to the visions Voldemort was using as a lure ? after being told about it again and again ? is any worse than how Riddle ensnared Ginny through the diary. Harry was older and much more experienced, so he should have known better, and the consequences were much much worse. Harry was very resourceful in the DoM, but he should never have been there, and Sirius should not have died. I think the sexism arises from her use of stereotypes. JKR is quite masterful, I think, in using a stereotype as the framework to create a character, then fleshing the character out to the extent it's demanded by the character's importance and plot function, so he/she seems *real* while still retaining the stereotype. The problem is that while JKR can create a parallel wizarding world in which women have regularly been taking on roles such as Minister for Magic or Hogwarts Headmistress for centuries (and can slip that information in as subtly as she did in revealing that the Irish chasers were all female), the characters who populate it are drawn from JKR's own experience in her own world, which reflects the effects of centuries of sexism. Thus, when she needs to create an ambitious Minister who cares more for holding onto his position than on the safety of the WW, the stereotypes she has at her disposal to use as a base are male. So it is Cornelius Fudge, not Cornelia. When she needs a model for a sometimes overprotective mother of seven, she's not likely to find a stereotype that's juggling a career. As a result, while JKR skillfully uses the stereotypes, they leave me not entirely convinced that her attempt to portray a non-sexist WW succeeds. Kathryn Cawte wrote: There are evil men and evil women, there are evil > and yet strangely compelling men (Malfoy) and women (Bellatrix), there are > stupid men (Crabbe and Goyle, both vintages) and stupid women (uh, OK > Millicent is the only one I can actually think of here) etc etc. I don't > think JKR's portrayal of the characters demonstrates any sexism at all, but > unfortunately the only way to totally avoid accusations of sexism is to make > all the women virtual saints (and she'd better darn well give them all > powerful jobs at the same time) - which is in itself incredibly sexist. > Personally I think Umbridge goes quite a way to destroying any accusations > of sexism since she's a woman in a high position of power and a > non-stereotypical job. > True, Umbridge was an assistant to Fudge, which doesn't seem to be a low-level position. But Percy was Crouch's personal assistant and he was more or less Crouch's go-for, doing everything per Crouch's written instructions. And the role we se her in most is that of teacher and headmistress, both of which *are* roles that are often filled with the stereotypical spinster. In fact, despite their obvious differences, I think Umbridge and McGonagall are two plays on a single stereotype. In many ways they are mirror-image doubles: McGonagall is stern on the outside, but with a soft side toward her students; Umbridge projects sweetness and femininity but is brutally abusive underneath the fa?ade. Both McGonagall (in CoS) and Umbridge (in OOP) were temporarily placed in charge of Hogwarts after Dumbledore was removed. And though we've only met her once, might Molly's literary double be Narcissa Malfoy? Or is it Bellatrix Lestrange, whose mock-baby talk to Harry is a cruel parody of Molly's genuine concern for Harry's welfare. Debbie From jakejensen at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 06:48:37 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:48:37 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > You are obviously strongly attached to the Snape!Vampire theory. > I assume you must have some evidence for taking this stance. > Fine; let's hear it. But I won't be responding unless it comes from > canon and is objectively compelling. Kneasy, I know you didn't say this to me....but I can't help but notice that a great deal of canon evidence has been presented by others. Initially, I would point you to Pippin's post (#35299 I believe) which will lead you to countless other canon-based posts. Secondly, one might want to be careful when using a phrase like "objectively compelling." What does such a phrase mean? Objectively compelling to you? Well...you are "strongly attached" to the idea that Snape is not a vampire and believe that, if he is, it would be a big letdown for the series. Jake Who thinks that Snape being a vampire is logical and that him not being a vampire is logical From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Fri Jan 9 07:01:26 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:01:26 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julie Stevenson" wrote: > I'm familiar with the sequence you're referring to, Carol. And yes, it does > appear that the name Snape is familiar to the Marauder's Map...but is it? Or > is it just as Lupin notes, that the parchment is charmed to respond with > insults based on currently-viewed details about the person attempting to > extract information without the password? > does the Map have the ability to draw its information in order to insult > from the current holder, and it's not pre-programmed to recognize Snape? I > think it might be argued either way. It wouldn't need to draw its information from the current holder. The Marauders Map displays the real name of everyone on it, therefore it already knows the name Snape. OTOH, this indicate that his true name is "Severus Snape" (He was shown on the map in PoA) Of course, its possible, if it was an official name change, that it may be reflected on the map. --Arcum From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 07:03:32 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:03:32 -0000 Subject: the missing godparent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" wrote: > > Fawkes: > > ... who is harry's godmother? ... if he has a godfather then he > > must have a godmother as well should he? > > > > Taryn: > > It's certainly not necessary. Within my family, I have a godfather > > and a godmother, two of my brothers only have one godfather, and > > one of my brothers has two godfathers. ... while it's certainly > > very possible Harry has a godmother, I just want to stress that > > it's not NECESSARY. (If he does have a godmother...well, where is > > she?) > > > Carol: > > ...edited... > > However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that > they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or > even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my soul!" .... > Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a > Muggle institution, ...edited... > > Carol, who knows that JKR can depict her world in any way she likes, > but nevertheless finds the religious elements strange. (I'm not > anti-Christian; I just think the WW and the RW should be a bit more > distinct.) bboy_mn: Point one - Godparents- Who is Harry's Godmother? In all likelihood she is ...(long pause to build suspense...) ...dead. We know that all of Harry ancestors are dead with the exception of Petunia, it seems reasonably logical that one or more of these dead relatives (grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc...) was one of Harry's other godparents. But in their absents, that left only the relatively young, best friend of the family, Sirius; who we all know was temporarily indisposed. Point two - Christian Wizards Let's look to history, mythology, and folklore for the answer to Christian wizards. Over the course of world history, magic folk have fallen into and out of favor many times. Many European kings kept wizards as close personal advisors. Merlin was wizard to King Arthur, not so much in the tales of Arthur as in the recorded tales of Merlin. Let's us also make a side note that Merlin was really one of the first Fan Fiction characters. The tales of Merlin were written by many different authors over the long period of many lifetimes. I'm not sure if any author ever claimed ownership to that character. I suspect, he existed in folklore, and was therefore public domain. The implication in the HP series, and in folklore in general, is that at times in history wizards, witches, and magic were a very favorable and even desirable part of the muggle world. We also know that the Church in the early years was tied very tightly to royalty and to the government. Reasonably, much of the early prejudice and oppression of wizard was forced upon society by the Church trying to gain power for itself, and therefore, have greater influence over the kings and queens of the land. That would mean that during favorable periods in history, witches and wizard would have been exposed, and indeed converted to the Christian faith. I see no incompatability between the witches and wizards we see in the HP series, and the possibility of Christian faith. I will however admit, that in the more real non-fictional world, the two seem to be mutually exclusive, but in the general world of folklore and mythology in combination with the world JKR shows us, I see no incompatability. I find it completely believable. But then, that's just one man's opinion. bboy_mn From Intensefancyblue at aol.com Fri Jan 9 04:05:11 2004 From: Intensefancyblue at aol.com (Intensefancyblue at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:05:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's... Message-ID: <19e.1ef3202c.2d2f8277@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88289 Good question. I think he thought nobody would think of looking for it in a girl's bathroom. I mean, if you're going to hide something you hide it out in the open. Where people can walk by it for years and not even think of it being there. Smart if you ask me. As for Ginny, it turns out (cough) she and the rest of the Weasley's are related to the Malfoys, Lestrange and Blacks. All who with the exception of Sirius and Ron's family were in Slytherin. Could it be that they were the only "good" pure- bloods? I think not. Though from what I've read Harry's dad was a bit of an ass at times until he got his act together. I also have a theory that Snape may be Lily's brother or half-brother because he reminds me an awful lot of Harry at times and is watching out for him. Intensefancyblue [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From barbienut75 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 9 04:09:46 2004 From: barbienut75 at earthlink.net (barbienut75) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:09:46 -0000 Subject: I've searched the archives....Persy Weasley??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88290 I've read in several other places, that He may go to the Dark Side, does anyone else think this, will he see, that the MOM was wrong about LV and stay on the good side? He does seem to want to be important, and maybe LV will give him some power he can't refuse? From pixieberry at harborside.com Fri Jan 9 05:04:36 2004 From: pixieberry at harborside.com (Krystol Berry) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:04:36 -0800 Subject: (FILK) I'll Be Back Message-ID: <004601c3d66e$144fda30$153a2d0c@D55NTV31> No: HPFGUIDX 88291 I'll Be Back To the tune the Beatles' I'll Be Back (lyrics at http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-beatles/i-ll-be-back.html) Dedicated to all you closet DEs out there... Scene: The graveyard in GOF Harry, tied to Riddle Sr.'s headstone looks up at Voldemort, who has just finished telling his tale to the DEs. Running a cold, white finger along Harry's cheek, LV croons: You know, if you thwart me now I'll go But I'll be back again. Cause I vanished once, whispered goodbye But I came back again. I loathe you so. I'm the one who wants you Yes I'm the one who wants you, Oh-h, Oh-h You could find better things to do Than to resist me again. This time my success will be sublime Ere long your life will end I incorrectly surmised That if I threw a curse at you That you would drop dead too But I got a big surprise, Oh-h, Oh-h You could find better things to do Than to resist me again. This time my success will be sublime Ere long your life will end It's time to go, now I must remove you You know I must remove you, Oh-h, Oh-h You, if you thwart me now I'll go But I'll be back again Smiling, LV aims his wand at Harry and shouts "Crucio!" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 08:43:13 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:43:13 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88292 > > Carol: > > > > ...edited... > > > > However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that > > they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or > > even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my soul!" .... > > Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a > > Muggle institution, ...edited... > > > > Carol, who knows that JKR can depict her world in any way she likes, > > but nevertheless finds the religious elements strange. (I'm not > > anti-Christian; I just think the WW and the RW should be a bit more > > distinct.) > > > bboy_mn: (lots of insightful info snipped for brevity) > That would mean that during favorable periods in history, witches and > wizard would have been exposed, and indeed converted to the Christian > faith. I see no incompatability between the witches and wizards we see > in the HP series, and the possibility of Christian faith. Ginger: To address both bboy_mn and Carol, let's not forget the influence of Muggleborns. I have heard the expression "Oh, my God" from people who deny the existance of a deity. It is merely an expression common in many cultures. A Muggleborn attends Hogwarts, uses the expression, and *poof* it catches on. Anyone remember the "cool" expressions that went around school at that age? It's like Ron saying "mate" constantly in OoP. Muggleborns may also have come from Christian families (or atheistic families, or Jewish families.....you get the idea). One doesn't have to leave one's faith behind when changing addresses. It is entirely possible that, over the centuries, some Wizards have become Christian. The customs, such as naming Godparents, may have followed, whether the practicing of the faith did or not. For all we know, Lily may have mentioned having Godparents to James, who thought it was a good idea to have someone designated to take Harry should LV get them. It would have been a wise precaution. Or Lily may have been a Christian, or of another faith which names Godparents. Or may have had a friend who was.....The possibilities are endless. As for celebrating Christmas, I still think Ron sums it up best: "Oy! Presents!" Easter? Not as big of a deal, but hey, free candy is good. Not to mention that the UK celebrates Christmas, so once again, we have the influence of Muggleborns. In another thread, people have pointed out that JKR uses familiar concepts to help us envision things without her having to take pages to describe them. That may meta-figure in here. Ginger, who actually used to use the expression "cooby George" cuz it was cool back then. I still have no idea at all what it meant. From adelram at edsamail.com.ph Fri Jan 9 07:20:43 2004 From: adelram at edsamail.com.ph (Rai-chan:>) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:20:43 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why put the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88293 vmonte writes: >Just a thought here. Why did Salazar put the COS in a girl's >bathroom? Was he specifically waiting for a female heir to open the >chamber? Was the choice of Ginny (instead of another Weasley) random >or intentional? Are the Weasley's descendants of Slytherin? And >have they made the choice (like Harry did) to be more like >Gryffindor? > I don't think Salazar Slytherin intentionally put the CoS in a girl's bathroom. As I remembered from the book, Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago...so probably it was not a bathroom before. The builders probably couldn't open the door that led to the CoS so they'd just laid the foundation over it. As for the girl theory, it was Lucius Malfoy who picked Ginny Weasley as Riddle's victim maybe because Ginny's still a freshman and was the most vulnerable (or she's the nearest when HP's group and Lucius and Draco Malfoy met at the Diagon Alley). I don't think he's waiting for a female heir since Tom Riddle (aka Lord Voldemort) is already the heir of Slytherin. Ginny was just the victim who was mind-controlled by Tom to eliminate the roosters which crowing is lethal to the serpent, or probably controlling her to speak parseltounge to command the serpent whom to kill. Also, he's using her to revived his former self... "It looked bad, all right ... but the longer Riddle stood there, the more life was dwindling out of Ginny ... and in the meantime, Harry noticed suddenly, Riddle's outline was becoming clearer, more solid .... If it had to be a fight between him and Riddle, better sooner than later" - Harry Potter and the CoS p316 And these are just my theories: The Weasley might be a descendant of Slytherin. Not direct but a distant descendant because the Weasley's are purebloods, right? I think all students at Hogwarts were given a choice to where they want to be placed. The Sorting hat's merely suggesting where house your abilities could be enhanced the best. Rai-chan:> _______________________________________ EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT. www.edsamail.com.ph From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 9 09:59:03 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:59:03 -0000 Subject: Can Harry Potter Predict his Future??????? (Book #4 -Goblet of Fire) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88294 Migdalia wrote: > I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet. But I was > wondering what everyone though about the fact that Harry Potter > predicts his future correctly in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire > (Book #4). > > Well in Chapter Fourteen (14) Harry and Ron are supposed to > predict what was going to happen to them in the next week using the > book "Unfogging the Future" for Divination class. But because of > all there homework and stuff, they decide to "fake it". But does > Harry really fake it? Harry starts inventing all kinds of things > that are supposedly going to happen to him in the next week. But > when you keep reading the book, if you keep in mind those > predictions, it??s obvious that there true, they don't happen in > just one week, but they occurred little by little in the school > year. > > Just for those that don??t remember them here they go: > > 1. "Okay... on Monday, I will be in danger of - er - > burns.". > > [Further on in the book, Harry has to fight Dragons in the first > task of the Triwizard Tournament, which explains his danger of being > burned.] > ---------- > 2. "Lose a treasured possession," said Harry, who was flicking > through Unfogging the Future for ideas. "Good one," said Ron > > [This one got me a little confused, because the way it's written, > its like Harry suggested it to Ron. But Harry loses a treasured > possession in the second task, he loses Ron at the bottom of the > lake, were he has to save him to win.] > ---------- > 3."Why don't you get stabbed in the back by someone you thought was > a friend" > > [This one was suggested to Harry by Ron. After Harry's name is > pulled out of the Goblet of Fire, you could say Ron stabbed him in > the back, because he doesn't believe that Harry when he says that he > didn??t put his name in there.] > ---------- > 4. "And on Wednesday, I think I'll come off worse in a fight." > > [Harry does come out worse in a fight, well in this case in the > second task; he is the last one to leave the lake.] > ------------ > 5. Harry laid down his quill too, having just finished predicting > his own death by decapitation. > > [This prediction doesn't come true obviously, because Harry is still > alive. This one is mentioned a few paragraphs after the others. I > don't remember at the end of the book, Harry almost being > decapitated by Lord Voldemort, or anyone else. So I don't know were > that one comes into the book at any time.] > > That's were my big confusion kicks in, is Harry Potter going to > die at the end of the books by being decapitated by Lord Voldemort? > And can Harry predict his future? Berit replies: I don't think Harry and Ron's constructed predictions turned out to be true. They are way too general, and the one that wasn't, hasn't come true so far (the decapitation). You can make almost anything fit those predictions. "I will be in danger of burns". Very general, isn't it? The statement doesn't say "I will get a burn"; just "I might get burnt." And Harry probably based his prediction on him going to handle the blast-ended skrewts in Hagrid's class... The chance of him getting a burn was quite high indeed; not very difficult to make such a prediction, is it? Anyone could do it :-) "Lose a treasured possession". Also way too general; we could put a lot of things in this bag; let's say Harry didn't have to retrieve Ron from the bottom of the lake, but happened to lose his favourite quill during the school-year. Or, this prediction could apply to Harry "losing" his wristwatch, he had to eventually throw it away after it stopped working in the lake. Aha!, we'd say; Harry is a true prophet! Nope. "Getting stabbed in the back by someone you thought was a friend." This could come true any day; anyone of Harry's friends not supporting him or going behind his back would have qualified; not just Ron and Harmione, but also Mad-Eye Moody would have fitted the profile. If someone stabbed Harry in the back in GoF, it was Impostor! Moody... As you see, one can make this "prediction" apply to just about any incident involving someone you trust. It's not so hard for Harry to predict he'll "come off worse in a fight." After all, he always seems to attract trouble, so the chance of him getting involved in some sort of fight and coming off worse during the school-year is very great indeed. And his last prediction; "death by decapitation" is the only prediction specific enough to take any notice of. Sad for Harry's reputation as a true Seer that it didn't come through at the end of the week since that was when he predicted it to happen :-) No, I just can't see how these made-up predictions could possibly be real predictions. It's like the one Trelawney made; was it Lavender or Parvati who was going to lose a treasured something the day the prediction was made, and then the girl got a message by owl the very same day, saying her pet rabbit had died. Hermione sat her straight, reminding her that the rabbit didn't die that day, but several days earlier... No, I'm with Hermione and Dumbledore + centaur Firenze on this (what they say often coincide with Rowling's views); there are very few, real predictions around, and certainly none of the mundane ones are true! According to Dumbledore Trelawney has made two real predictions in her whole life, dismissing the hundreds of hundreds of "mundane" ones she does in class every week; and they're the same kind as Ron And Harry make up to satisfy Trelawney's need for tragic things to happen... It's pure superstition to believe in these types of "predictions". Downright stupid, according to Firenze :-) Berit From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 10:31:13 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:31:13 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Afternoon Delight Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88295 This is in respnse to the demand for an Aberforth Filk based on the Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" This filk is dedicated to Amanda (mandolabar) and to Caius Marcius. Aberforth's Afternoon Delight SCENE: Aberforth serenades his dearest friend Nanny, whom he has nicknamed his "Aberforth's Delight." ABERFORTH: Gonna find my kid, I'm gonna hold her tight Gonna grab my "Aberforth's Delight" My motto's always been "when it's tight, it's right," And that Mafalda Hopkirk is just full of spite. The Improper Use of Magic Office owls me, But I say my charms are quite appropriate, anyone can see. Thinkin' of you's workin' up my appetite Looking forward to my little "Aberforth's Delight." Rubbin' "wands" and "stones" together makes the charms ignite, And the thought of lovin' you is getting so exciting Wand sparks up in flight. "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight Started out this morning in an awful plight. The Department of Magical Law Enforcement will fight But you've got some hay a waitin' and I think you might try nibbling, My little "Aberforth's Delight" Wand sparks up in flight "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight. Please be waiting in the barnyard, when I come around We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down Thinkin' of you's workin' up my appetite Looking forward to a little afternoon delight. Rubbin' "wands" and "stones" together makes the charms ignite And the thought of lovin' you is getting so exciting Wand sparks up in flight "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight. "Aberforth's Delight!" Haggridd From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 10:52:02 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:52:02 -0000 Subject: FILK: Aberforth's Afternoon Delight (corrected) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88296 Sorry for the corretcion. I noticed it a second AFTER I hit the send button (of course). This filk is dedicted to Amanda (mandolabar) and CMC Aberforth's Afternoon Delight SCENE: Aberforth seranades his dearest friend Nanny, whom he has nicknamed his "Aberforth's Delight." ABERFORTH: Gonna find my kid, I'm gonna hold her tight Gonna grab my "Aberforth's Delight" My motto's always been "when it's tight, it's right," And that Mafalda Hopkirk is just full of spite. The Improper Use of Magic Office owls me, But I say my charms are quite appropriate, anyone can see. Thinkin' of you's workin' up my appetite Looking forward to my little "Aberforth's Delight." Rubbin' "wands" and "stones" together makes the charms ignite, And the thought of lovin' you is getting so exciting Wand sparks up in flight. "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight Started out this morning in an awful plight. The Department of Magical Law Enforcement will fight But you've got some hay a waitin' and I think you might try nibbling, My little "Aberforth's Delight" Wand sparks up in flight "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight. Please be waiting in the barnyard, when I come around We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down Thinkin' of you's workin' up my appetite Looking forward to my little "Aberforth's Delight." Rubbin' "wands" and "stones" together makes the charms ignite And the thought of lovin' you is getting so exciting Wand sparks up in flight "Aberforth's Delight" Afternoon delight Afternoon delight. "Aberforth's Delight!" -Haggridd From fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 11:05:43 2004 From: fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com (Martha) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:05:43 -0000 Subject: the missing godparent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88297 bboy: I see no incompatability between the witches and wizards we see > in the HP series, and the possibility of Christian faith. > > I will however admit, that in the more real non-fictional world, the > two seem to be mutually exclusive, but in the general world of > folklore and mythology in combination with the world JKR shows us, I > see no incompatability. I find it completely believable. Martha: I second that. I think the issue here is that while in the real world, magic has been seen in the past as a threat to Christianity (etc), or as a religion in its own right, in the WW it is unrelated to religion. Wizards and witches in the Potterverse use magic as we use technology - it is an ability or a skill that makes certain aspects of life easier. Technology and religion are generally seen as compatible in our society, so why not magic and religion and the WW? As far as we know, magic in the WW does not involve, for example, envoking any outside source of power (a deity, spirits etc). It is a skill, and moreover it does not just come naturally - training is involved. Some users of this skill are better at it than others. Carol: > > However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that > > they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or > > even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my soul!" .... > > Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a > > Muggle institution, Martha: This relates to the points I made above. I don't see chosen religion in the WW and magic as incompatible because I don't see why Christianity is necessarily a muggle institution. True, we have seen no evidence of the practice of religion, but IMO that's because Harry doesn't practice any religion. We don't know what other students do. I went to a state comprehensive school and while we had "assemblies" which sometimes involved religious thought, as a general rule religious beliefs were kept well away from the curriculum. If you were of a certain religion, fair play to you. Hogwarts may well be a boarding school, but it seems to me that JKR has chosen to reflect the way that state schools are run in the UK - without specific religious beliefs being imposed upon students. Anyway, just two knuts... ~ Martha (who, if she ever has kids, will ensure they have fairy gothmothers to furnish them with black clothes, and also godfathers who say things like "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse") ;-) From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Jan 9 11:37:43 2004 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:37:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3CF100D0-4298-11D8-9B26-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 88298 >>> Carol: >>> >>> ...edited... >>> >>> However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that >>> they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or >>> even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my > soul!" .... >>> Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a >>> Muggle institution, ...edited... >>> >>> Carol, who knows that JKR can depict her world in any way she > likes, >>> but nevertheless finds the religious elements strange. (I'm not >>> anti-Christian; I just think the WW and the RW should be a bit > more >>> distinct.) >> I seem to be in the mood to contribute to this thread, even though the subject resurfaces regularly and is going to resurface again and be subject to the same cultural misunderstandings next time as it was last time, etc... I celebrate Christmas in the same way that the WW does: exchange of presents, consumption of feast, decoration of premises. (I also enjoy singing Christmas carols, if the occasion arises.) None of the above seems to me to have religious significance. I would classify it as 'Tradition'. I don't care whether the use of holly and ivy and candles and a pine tree to make the house look festive is a peculiar mixture of pagan and Christian customs - I assume it is - I do it because "It's Christmassy". I am an atheist. But Christmas is fun! I don't think that the fact that the WW acknowledges Christmas is an indication either of religion or of non-religion. It simply demonstrates that in certain ways, the WW is *like* the Muggle world. Our Muggle calendar includes a public holiday period based on Christmas (and schools have what is in the UK called the Christmas vacation, lasting about two weeks), and a public holiday period based around Easter (schools also have an Easter vacation, which presumably in the US would be known as Spring Break). These are enjoyable festivals involving large quantities of chocolate, which is as good an excuse as any for a celebration! In omitting any reference to the Christian roots of these festivals, JKR is (a) avoiding the issue of whether or not wizards have religious beliefs, and what these might be; and, more importantly (b) mirroring the normal behaviour of British society. While it is true that there are some efforts made to note the religious aspects of these occasions (Christmas carols on Radio 4, that kind of thing), and there are some people who have sincere regard for the Christian meaning of these occasions, it seems that most of British society regards them as an opportunity not to have to go to work, to acquire expensive consumer goods, and to eat and drink too much. If Hogwarts did not take any notice of Christmas, it would feel as though it were truly part of an alien society - and as I see it, the Wizarding World is supposed to be hidden right next to us. That is part of its charm. It's moderately interesting to note that the WW does not take any notice whatever of Guy Fawkes' Night (5th November - aka Bonfire Night), which has for many years been a much more significant (but non-religious) annual event in England than Halloween has... But non-British citizens have no reason to be aware of Bonfire Night, so nobody enquires why Harry doesn't wonder why there are no fireworks... and in any case it is very close to Halloween. I suspect that JKR has her WW celebrating Halloween because of the vague notion that it is a 'witchy' kind of night, because for most of England (though not necessarily all - there are places in the UK where various Halloween traditions survive) it is a relatively new festival, which frankly has been re-imported from the USA. I was aware of certain Halloween traditions when I was a child - bobbing for apples, and the like - but never bothered with them, but nowadays there are a few kids in the neighbourhood who dress up and doorstep people for treats. Incidentally, Halloween is also in origins a religious festival. Pen From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 9 11:53:57 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:53:57 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > > Kneasy, I know you didn't say this to me....but I can't help but > notice that a great deal of canon evidence has been presented by > others. Initially, I would point you to Pippin's post (#35299 I > believe) which will lead you to countless other canon-based posts. > Secondly, one might want to be careful when using a phrase > like "objectively compelling." What does such a phrase mean? > Objectively compelling to you? Well...you are "strongly attached" to > the idea that Snape is not a vampire and believe that, if he is, it > would be a big letdown for the series. > > Jake > Who thinks that Snape being a vampire is logical and that him not > being a vampire is logical I suppose it all depends on your definition of 'canon evidence'. Since JKR is a tricky writer, who seems to relish in misleading her readers, the literal words of the books may be (and is some cases are) a deliberate attempt to mislead or the precursor to a conflict necessary to the plot, to be resolved later as the story-line progresses. It may be significant that the characters who turn out to be not what they seem are revealed as such within a single volume of the series (Quirrell, Lupin, Sirius, Crouch!Moody). Fans may offer counter arguments, but it doesn't seem that startling revelations of what someone is are multi-volume threads. The only arguable instance is Scabbers (introduced in book 1 and revealed in book 3), but for the first two books he was a minor cast member who blossomed(!) in book 3. To put it crudely, he was 'a nothing' that became 'a something'. He may yet become a 'something else' but that has already been hinted at with his debt to Harry. Snape is a bit different. He's been a central character for 5 books and has been 'a something' right from the beginning. For him to become 'a something else' now, and what's more a type of something else that doesn't seem relevant to anything that's gone before, seems pointless. A form of exhibitionism without eaning, if you get my drift. Vampires are mentioned in the text, mostly where you would expect them to be (DADA classes and relating to DADA teachers, plus Hagrid's mission), but there seem to be no references to Vampires in the UK at the present time; they all seem to be found in places distant and mysterious. I have difficulty in imagining a context where Snape being revealed as a vampire would be relevant to what has gone before, bearing in mind that most key threads link back to past events. You might call that my philosophical argument. As to the evidence produced by Pippin, filoroll and others, all I can say is that, *IMO*, all of it can be explained by alternative interpretations. Moreover, and I may be mistaken here, the only reason that the adherents of the Snape!Vampire theory seem to have is a desire to see a vampire in the story somewhere and Snape is the one elected. Now if someone can offer cogent reasons *why* Snape needs to be a vampire, I'll be more than happy to listen (and probably to dissent, but that's beside the point). Add to this the evidence countering the Snape!Vampire hypothesis (that he doesn't show the behavioural characteristics associated with the breed), and I hope you will understand my deep scepticism. The phrase 'objectively compelling' is meant to mean 'compelling to an objective reader' which I am not, not on this subject anyway. I fear I have dug into my trench, sown my minefield, strung the barbed wire, ready for a war of attrition (all to be fought within the rules of the Potterverse Convention, naturally). Kneasy From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jan 9 11:57:42 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:57:42 -0000 Subject: Harry and the importance of Quidditch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88300 Quidditch is very important to Harry and so for the reader, for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, understanding and even obsessing over Quidditch is a way to show he belongs to the WW. His support of the Chudley Canons, a mediocre team, rather than the fashionable Tornados, perhaps seals his original bond of friendship with Ron, the first person who really seems to have accepted him as an equal. Thus, with his Quidditch team support, the reader can see the importance Harry places on friendship.. Secondly, Harry is good at Quidditch, very good. In the words of Professor McGonagall "The boy's a natural. I've never seen anything like it." P. 112 PS UK edition. Harry is not a natural scholar. He carries the burden of fame for a past he cannot remember, and constantly zigzags between fame and infamy. Yet, with flying, with Quidditch, he feels he can justify his famous name: "In a rush of fierce joy he realised he'd found something he could do without being taught ? this was easy, this was wonderful". Harry doesn't really believe that he has any strengths, but "What was he best at? Well, that was easy, really ? "Quidditch" he said" GoF p.301 When Harry flew in the first task in GoF, "He realised that he had left not only the ground behind, but also his fear he was back where he belonged " p.310 Thus, Quidditch allows Harry to justify his fame to himself but it also allows him to forget it and all his worries. In contrast to his school work, Harry does work hard in Quidditch, he practices hard and reads up about the theory, showing that when Harry is dedicate to something, he can apply himself. Harry's Quidditch talent is recognised and encouraged by his adult mentors. Rules are broken to allow him to play Quidditch in the first year and to have his own broom. The gift of the Firebolt allows Harry to realise his talent more fully than if he had to continue with a slower Cleansweep, like Ron. Quidditch also gives Harry a link to his dead father, James who was a good Quidditch player. When Sirius gives Harry the Firebolt, it somehow connects Harry to the life he might have had ? with his father and godfather -to one of his most enjoyable past times now, Quidditch. Of course, because Quidditch is so important to Harry, JKR constantly deprives him of it: In CoS, Quidditch is cancelled because of the Basilisk menace. In GoF there is no Quidditch season because of the Tri-Wizard tournament, and of course, Umbridge knowing what Quidditch means to Harry, gives him a lifelong ban in OoP. In PoA, Harry's enjoyment of Quidditch is threatened until he can gain mastery over the Dementors. To date, Harry has never truly been beaten in Quidditch. When Hufflepuff won in PoA, it was because Harry was facing the Dementors. Arguably, despite his lack of attention at that point, Cedric would not have won if the Dementors (and Sirius) and had diverted Harry's attention. Despite Harry's ability, he seems never to have considered Quidditch as a post-Hogwarts Career. Perhaps this is because he knows that Quidditch can only ever be a diversionary hobby, but JKR has choosen not to explain this. With Umbridge removed, it would seem likely that Harry's lifelong ban has been lifted. Now, we must wonder will Harry ever be captain of the Gryffindor team and will he ever be beaten? Ali From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 21:40:24 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:40:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? References: Message-ID: <005301c3d6f9$32f42e10$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88301 > vmonte writes: > > Just a thought here. Why did Salazar put the COS in a girl's > bathroom? Was he specifically waiting for a female heir to open the > chamber? Was the choice of Ginny (instead of another Weasley) random > or intentional? Are the Weasley's descendants of Slytherin? And > have they made the choice (like Harry did) to be more like > Gryffindor? > K There's no real reason to assume it was a girl's bathroom 1000 years ago. It was probably still a bathroom but since it now looks like a modern one I think we can assume it has been somewhat remodelled in the last millennium, in which case it may have been a boys bathroom, or a staffbathroom or even a *private* bathroom at one stage. If the ww population has grown in the last thousand years (and with the massive growth in the muggle population over that time that's not an unreasonable hypothesis) then there would have been less students and some of the staff might have had large apartments (especially if they had family at the school) K From Monsieur_de_Bergerac at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 13:03:13 2004 From: Monsieur_de_Bergerac at hotmail.com (Laurence) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:03:13 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88302 Hi All, I like this subject a lot, especially because it IS controversial and I find it very often minimized --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Stereotypes- > > Stereotypes exist because they are real. Girls DO giggle too much > (ask any guy), it IS in a woman nature to be nurturing and caregiving. No, that is more than a stereotype, that a preconceived idea. > It IS in the nature of men to be hunters and adventures. No, it was the case 1000 years ago, when you were a woman with 10 kids, exhausted by 15 pregnancies; of course you let the guys go hunting but, for Merlin's sake, in 2004 (and already in 1990), first, you nearly choose if and when you want children, second, you don't need to go hunting to eat. And we don't see anything against that for the WW. >Men bring home the bacon, and women fry it up in a pan; that's a fact of life. Saying "that's a fact of life", that's also what I call inconscient sexism. It WAS true, still 50 years ago. It isn't true anymore, but people still believe it is. > Sexism- > > Sexism, like racism, implies a form of oppression. We do see women >in the HP series conforming to stereotypical female roles, BUT, and >this is a very BIG BUT, we do not see them forced into those roles. I see your point, but we do not see them NOT forced into those roles either. > > Mrs. Weasley is a 'stay at home' mom, but she is not forced by >society to live that role. To be honest, we don't know We don't know either if it there are magical cr?ches or magical primary school, Ron, which is the magical child Harry the closest to Harry, never speaks about his primary school. That could be quite difficult to be anything else than a stay at home mum if those don't exist. Also Petunia, Lily, Molly against Mrs Granger, that's three mothers against one we don't know anything other in their life than their children (a least according to the Lexicon, and speaking about "work"). I have nothing against stay at home Mum, but to free completely JKR from the accusation of "inconscient sexism", that I probably should call "stereotypical sexism", I would like for Harry to meet the husband of Tonks and her children (Yes I know she's too young, but you get my meaning). >AND, and this is a very big AND, we do not know > that Mrs. Weasley IS a stay at home mom. We see only a very small > window into her life, and we see it through the distorted eyes of a > small boy with very little life experience. That is, very little > experience in the normal life of a regular boy. > > It is entirely possible that Mrs. Weasley has a very full and rich > life 'off-page'. However, since we have no information, we can draw > few conclusions about her life. > Maybe Molly isn't a stay at home Mum, but Ron never talked about the job of her mother, instead we see Arthur and Percy going to work, and never have we heard about Molly having to take a day off to be there for her children, we never heard her talking about going back to work, even if Ginny isn't home anymore. It looks a lot like a stay at home Mum stereotype. > In addition, Mrs. Weasley is a very strong character. I can't >think of a living soul in the wizard world who wouldn't cower, or >at least cringe, in the face of Mrs. Weasley when she was in a >towering rage. > It's clear that Mrs. Weasley is a strong forceful woman who doesn't > take any crap from anyone, big or small. She is not afraid to speak > her mind, and it is clear that she, without a doubt, rules the >Weasley roost. If she's so strong, why don't we ever hear about her public life? What I mean is, in fanon at least, it's quite common for Arthur to be candidate to be MoM which is to "govern" the +/- 30.000 wizards and witches of the UK, and Molly reigns over the 8 people of her family, well, sorry if I don't find it equal But I've never come across a fic where MOLLY becomes MoM (oooh, plot bunny there!), and I think that is quite connected to her canon description. > So, my point is, that while we see women in typical women's roles, >and in many case, we see women engaging in stereotypical behavior, >we DO NOT, as far as I can see, see women forces into any of these >roles. Same as before, I preach the "we don't know", and so for me stereotypical role means stereotypical sexism which is true for "our" world too. My point of view is that the space given for women in JKR's world is not better, and I would even say a little bit worse for what we have seen, than a European (or American) western country that I personally consider sexist. For me, there is sexism as soon as you find it more "normal" to find a stay at home Mum, than a stay at home Dad (still not met in JKR's world, for how much Mum!), or that if you're a women with a career, you can't have children. Have we ever heard of the family members of the professors? Where are Mr Sprout, Mr Mac McGonagall, Monsieur Pince? Where are their children? (don't know you, but there was always a son, a niece, a cousin, of the professors in my school, especially if Hogwart is the only magical school). Please add my two knuts to the common pot I wait avidly your thoughts on the subject Laurence From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 9 13:31:11 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:31:11 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88303 This is possibly a stupid question, but is there an exact definition of a Squib? I mean, are Squibs entirely devoid of magic (as in: the perfect opposite of a Muggle-born wizard), or do they possess some, but not enough to be a 'full' wizard/witch? I know that: - Mrs Figg can at least see Dementors and - Filch has somehow managed to hide his "Squibdom" during his long career at Hogwarts (at least the students don't seem to be aware of it). My questions are: 1) If Squibs have no magic at all, then the Kwikspell course is just swindlery. Alternatively, can magic be acquired somehow, e.g. by doing the Kwikspell course? 2) And do Squibs have wands? The first lesson in the Kwikspell course is one on how to hold your wand, which implies you need to have one in the first place. If 'the wand chooses the wizard', can you just go into a shop and buy one, even if you are a Squib? 3) On another thread someone states that Squibs are not invited to be educated at Hogwarts. Is there canon evidence to support this statement? Also, would it not be perfectly possible for a Squib to study, say, Herbology, Care of Magical Creatures, Astronomy, Divination (at least with Trelawny), Arithmancy, Potions? If Squibs don't go to Hogwarts - or any other school for magic -, where do they get educated? Are they outcasts, banished to the Muggle world? That would seem very cruel indeed, especially since they spring forth from the magical community. Any suggestions and answers are very, very welcome - the Squib business really fascinates me. Yours severely, Sigune From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 14:20:02 2004 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:20:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Chapter Summary Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88304 Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley Chapter Summary: Harry, nonplussed by Dumbledore's abrupt departure from the courtroom, waits to be told that he may leave. When he realizes that no one is paying him any attention, he makes a quick getaway, and is met by an anxious Mr. Weasley. Upon learning of Harry's acquittal, Arthur congratulates him heartily - it is clear that he was truly concerned. Arthur is shocked to discover that Harry was tried by the entire Wizengamot, who file out in front of him. When they leave, Fudge ignores Harry and Arthur, Umbridge (although Harry doesn't know her name yet) gives Harry an appraising look, and Percy pointedly walks past his father without acknowledging him. Arthur announces that he will take Harry back to Grimmauld Place before going to deal with an exploding toilet. He begins to talk about the attitudes underlying Muggle-baiting. "...Muggle-baiting might strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much deeper and nastier..." Arthur stops speaking when he and Harry spot Fudge in conversation with Lucius Malfoy. Malfoy greets Harry jeeringly as 'Patronus Potter', and tries to upset Harry by making references to his 'snakelike' escape. When Harry asks Malfoy about his business at the MoM, Malfoy tells him to mind his own business and smoothes his robes. Harry hears 'the gentle clinking of what sounded like a full pocket of gold.' Malfoy and Fudge leave for the latter's office. After they leave, Mr. Weasley states that Malfoy was probably trying to sneak into the courtroom, and notes bitterly that Fudge's business with Malfoy probably involves gold. "'Gold, I expect,' said Mr. Weasley angrily. 'Malfoy's been giving generously to all sorts of things for years ... gets him in with the right people ... then he can ask favours ... delay laws he doesn't want passed ... oh, he's very well-connected, Lucius Malfoy.'" Harry suggests that Fudge might have been placed under the Imperius Curse, but Mr. Weasley responds that Dumbledore claims otherwise. They arrive at the MoM atrium, where Harry dumps out his entire moneybag in the fountain. While doing this, he takes a closer look at the statue, and revises his opinion of the characters depicted in it. The witch and wizard seem vapid and foolish, respectively, and Harry doubts that a goblin or a centaur would stare so soppily at humans. Everyone at Grimmauld Place is ecstatic at the news of Harry's acquittal - Ginny, Fred and George even start a victory dance. Mr. Weasley tells Sirius about Lucius Malfoy's presence at the Ministry, and Sirius promises to relay the news to Dumbledore. Harry notes wistfully (and feeling rather childish about it) that he wishes Dumbledore had stayed after the hearing to talk to him. As he thinks about this, his scar hurts so badly that he clutches at his forehead. He dismisses this outburst to the others by saying that it happens all the time. Over the next few days, Harry notices a change for the worse in Sirius' mood. He becomes moody and surly, and spends more and more time with Buckbeak. Hermione, when questioned about this, suggests that Sirius had allowed himself to hope that Harry might stay with him at Grimmauld Place if he were expelled. She suggests that this is selfish of Sirius, and echoes Mrs. Weasley's statement that Sirius seems to confuse Harry and James - a comment that raises Harry's ire. As the holidays draw to and end, Harry finds himself wishing more and more for Hogwarts - life at Grimmauld Place is beginning to weary him, and he's been kept completely in the dark with regards to Order business. On the last day of holidays, the book-lists arrive. There are only two new books on the list, including a DADA textbook. Fred and George apparate into Harry and Ron's room and wonder aloud who had set that book. The tell Harry and Ron that Dumbledore had been having trouble filling the position. As they're talking, Ron finds something startling in his school letter - a Prefect's badge. Ron is speechless, and Fred and George are dismayed, telling Harry that they had been certain he would be chosen for the position. Ron holds the badge out to Harry as if seeking confirmation, just at the moment at which an overjoyed Hermione bursts in to announce her selection as Prefect. She sees Harry holding the badge and assumes that it belongs to him, which causes an uncomfortable moment. Ron gets over his shock, and even looks defiant as he tells Hermione 'It's my name on the letter'. The next person to be shocked is Mrs. Weasley, who is well pleased by the news of Ron's selection. She is beside herself with joy, and offers him a present as a reward (one of her suggestions is 'a new rat. You always liked Scabbers'). Ron bashfully requests a broom, and after a moment's consideration Mrs. Weasley agrees. Fred and George are quite contemptuous towards Ron after their mother leaves, saying that they'd love to see him try to put them in detention, to which Hermione hotly responds 'He could if you don't watch out!'. After they leave, Ron notes ruefully that they've always said that only prats become prefects. Ron leaves the room, and Harry finds himself unable to meet Hermione's eye. In an artificially cheerful voice, he congratulates her on her selection, and lets her borrow Hedwig so that she can give her parents the good news. Left on his own, Harry admits to himself that he would have expected to receive the prefect's badge himself instead of Ron, and wonders whether this makes him as arrogant as Draco Malfoy. Harry argues with himself. On one hand, he asserts that the only field at which he's better than Ron is Quidditch - they do equally well at lessons. Then he thinks about the things that happen outside of lessons - the adventures he's had with Ron and Hermione. He notes that while Ron and Hermione were with him most of the time, when it really came down to it, he was alone. He begins to feel very ill-used, but then considers that Dumbledore, when he selects prefects, might not look for people who '[get] themselves into a load of dangerous situations' and concludes that Ron must have something he doesn't. He remembers Fred saying that 'No one in their right mind would make Ron a prefect' and gives a snort of laughter. Then he feels sickened. "Ron had not asked Dumbledore to give him the prefect badge. This was not Ron's fault. Was he, Harry, Ron's best friend in the world, going to sulk because he didn't have a badge, laugh with the twins behind Ron's back, ruin this for Ron when, for the first time, he had beaten Harry at something?" When Ron returns, Harry genuinely congratulates him. That evening, the Order holds an impromptu party to send the kids off to school and in honor of the new prefects. Harry notes that Mrs. Weasley seems in a better mood then he's seen her in all holiday. The party is attended by the Weasleys (parents, younger children and Bill), Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Mundungus and Mad-Eye Moody. Mrs. Weasley asks Moody to look through the locked writing desk in the drawing room, and he informs her that there is indeed a Boggart inside. Mrs. Weasley says that she will deal with the Boggart herself later, and proudly informs Moody of Ron's selection as prefect. Moody's reaction is to swivel his magical eye in Harry's direction, and congratulate Ron by saying that Dumbledore must think Ron can handle himself, as 'authority figures always attract trouble'. Mrs. Weasley toasts Ron and Hermione, and the conversation turns to prefects of the past. Sirius announces that both he and James were too troublesome to be made prefects, and that Lupin was selected in the hopes of curbing their excesses. Lupin notes that he failed at this task, and Harry is heartened to hear that his father was also not a prefect. The party continues. Ron waxes eloquent about his new broom. Hermione and Lupin discuss elf rights, and she compares the elves' treatment to werewolf segregation, Mrs. Weasley nags Bill about the length of his hair. Harry spots Fred and George buying Venomous Tentacula seeds from Mundungus, which they need for their Skiving Snackboxes but can't get legally because they're a class C non-tradable substance. Harry warns the twins that Moody might spot them, which prompts Mundungus to sell the goods cheap and the twins to take them upstairs. Harry begins to wonder what will happen when Mr. and Mrs. Weasley discover who backed the twins' joke shop enterprise, and fears that he might lose Mrs. Weasley's affections. Still feeling uneasy, Harry overhears Kingsley Shacklebolt wondering why Dumbledore didn't choose him for prefect, saying it would have shown confidence in him. He begins to feel even less comfortable and starts to think of going upstairs. Ron continues to describe his broom, as Mrs. Weasley announces that she's going to deal with the Boggart. Just as Harry tries to make his own getaway, Moody waylays him, and shows him an old photograph of the original Order of the Phoenix. He begins listing the names of the people in the picture, including their sometimes gruesome fates. The members of the Order mentioned: Moody Dumbledore Dedalus Diggle Marlene McKinnon - killed two weeks after the picture was taken Frank and Alice Longbottom Emmeline Vance Lupin Benjy Fenwick - 'he copped it too, we only ever found bits of him' Edgar Bones - brother of Amelia Bones, killed with his family Sturgis Podmore Caradoc Dearborn - vanished six months after the picture was taken Hagrid Elphias Doge Gideon Prewett - killed with his brother Fabian by six DEs Aberforth Dumbledore Dorcas Meadows - killed personally by Voldemort Sirius The last three people in the picture, which Moody says he thought would interest Harry, are Lily and James Potter sitting with Peter Pettigrew between them. Harry is shaken, although Moody seems to believe that he's given him something of a treat. Harry makes a quick getaway, aided by Sirius' interest in Moody's photograph. As he makes his way upstairs, Harry wonders why the picture should have had such an effect on him when he'd seen pictures of his parents before. He concludes that he was disturbed by having seen them, and the other members of the Order, so happy and unaware of what was to come. As he tiptoes up the stairs, Harry hears sobbing in the drawing room. He walks in and finds Ron dead. After a moment of shock, Harry realizes that Mrs. Weasley is being tormented by the Boggart, who is showing her images of her dead family. Ron turns into Bill, then Mr. Weasley, the twins, Percy and Harry. Before Harry can get Mrs. Weasley out of the room Lupin walks in, followed by Sirius and Moody. Lupin understands what's going on in an instant and banishes the Boggart. Mrs. Weasley collapses on Lupin's shoulder. She confesses that she sees and dreams of her family's deaths constantly, and asks Lupin not to tell Arthur. Sirius is still staring fixedly at the spot where the Boggart in the form of Harry's dead body had lain. Mrs. Weasley continues to cry. She worries about half her family being in the Order, about the possibility of one or all of them dying without making it up with Percy, and about the fate of Ron and Ginny if she and Arthur were to die. Lupin tries to reassure her by telling her that things are better for the Order this time around. They are better prepared and know what Voldemort is up to. Last time they were outnumbered twenty to one by the DEs and were being picked off one by one. Sirius assures Molly that Percy will come around. Once Voldemort moves into the open the Ministry will be begging for forgiveness. Sirius notes that he doesn't know if he'll accept the apology. Lupin tells Mrs. Weasley that the other Order members would take care of Ron and Ginny if something were to happen to her and Arthur. Mrs. Weasley is somewhat appeased, and states that she's being silly, but later that night Harry wonders if this is true. He thinks about the picture of the order, and can't stop seeing the Boggart taking the form of various dead Weasleys. His scar throbs again, and Harry feels 'older than he had ever felt in his life and it seemed extraordinary to him that barely half an hour ago he had been worried over a joke shop and who had got a prefect's badge.' Abigail NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 as well as "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 14:20:17 2004 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:20:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88305 Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley Discussion Questions: 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the past. Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's statement shed a new light on him? 2. Arthur's statement that Lucius Malfoy was trying to sneak into the courtroom is presumably a misdirection on JKR's part. The corridor in which Harry and Arthur find him is the one leading to the Department of Mysteries - was he perhaps trying to sneak in? What business does Lucius have with Fudge? 3. Lucius greets Harry as 'Patronus Potter'. Later in the book Bellatrix refers to Sirius as 'Animagus Black'. In the latter case, a person is referred to by the magical ability that distinguishes him - is this also true for Harry? We know that his ability to conjure a corporeal Patronus is unusual in a boy so young, but does this ability - and the moniker - mark Harry as a protective figure (after all, in conjuring the Patronus, he was also protecting his helpless cousin)? Is it significant that the only two people we've met who've used this fashion of referring to people are Death Eaters? 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial underpinnings? 5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could Dumbledore know this for sure? 6. Why does Harry's scar burn when he returns to Grimmauld place? Is Voldemort angry or happy about something, or is he reacting to Harry's thoughts about Dumbledore? 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better choice? 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? 12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's badge, and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of emotional maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of that kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly being in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during OOP? 13. Sirius tells us that James wasn't a prefect, and yet we know from PS/SS that he was Head Boy. Several suggestions have been made in the attempt to resolve this paradox, among them the claim that this is a FLINT, the suggestion that a HB isn't necessarily selected from among the prefects, and the suggestion that Lupin was stripped of his prefect's badge, which was given to James. Which, if any, do you think is true? What do you think this bodes for Harry's chances of being made Head Boy? 14. Why does Moody show Harry the photograph of the Order, and why does he think Harry would be interested in the picture of his parents? Is he unaware of the reaction Harry might have to seeing his parents with Pettigrew, or is he purposefully trying to provoke that reaction? Is Moody unaware that Harry does have pictures of his parents, and perhaps thinks that this is the first time Harry has seen a photograph of them? 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? 16. Does Mrs. Weasley's Boggart really conjure the image of both twins dead together? What does this tell us about her perception of the twins? What does it tell us about JKR's? 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the coming war? Abigail NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 as well as "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 14:24:36 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:24:36 -0000 Subject: FILK: New Snackboxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88306 Fred and George have a new wireless jingle advertising their new snackboxes. It is to the tune of Moonlight Cocktail, a song that was dying to be filked with all the places to add potion ingredients. The words are by Kim Gannon, music by Lucky Roberts. It is probably best known by Glenn Miller and his Orchestra, but the version in my head is by Jones and Co. I had to eliminate a syllable from Tentacula (Tentac'la) to make it scan. It's not a typo. Really. To CMC. Fred and George alternate lines: Couple of eggs from a doxy, and asphodel. Powder a horn of erumpent and stir it well. Give to a couple of slackers, and they will tell: Students hail our new Snackboxes. Now add a couple of knarl quills, some murtlap too. Simmer a couple of hours, 'til it turns blue. Seeds of venemous tentac'la-just one or two. All Snackboxes have a few. Pop a purple as you please. Classtime hours can be devoted to your ease. You'll soon learn to fake a sneeze. The orange completes your Weasley Wizard Wheeze. Why sit through Binns' boring lectures, when you can be Living a life of contentment where you'll be free? You will find new-found refreshment and say "I see! These Snackboxes are for me!" Ginger, getting over a flu bug and finding this subject oddly compelling. From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 9 14:50:13 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:50:13 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: <005301c3d6f9$32f42e10$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88307 K wrote: > There's no real reason to assume it was a girl's bathroom 1000 years ago. It was probably still a bathroom but since it now looks like a modern one I think we can assume it has been somewhat remodelled in the last millennium, in which case it may have been a boys bathroom, or a staffbathroom or even a *private* bathroom at one stage. If the ww population has grown in the last thousand years (and with the massive growth in the muggle population over that time that's not an unreasonable hypothesis) then there would have been less students and some of the staff might have had large apartments (especially if they had family at the school) Berit replies: At least there is evidence that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom always has been some kind of a bathroom, and it can't have been remodelled too heavily. If someone tried to remove or replace the sink, they might have discovered the passageway underneath it. If not, they might have destroyed or removed the "mechanism" that opens the chamber of secrets; the copper tap on the sink: Quote: "It looked like an ordinary sink. They examined every inch of it, inside and out, including the pipes below. And then Harry saw it: scratched on the side of one of the copper taps was a tiny snake." (CoS p. 222 UK Ed). So at least the sink and its copper tap must be the original one. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 23:41:13 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) References: Message-ID: <000701c3d70a$11c34300$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88308 Laurence To be honest, we don't know. We don't know either if it there are magical crches or magical primary school, Ron, which is the magical child Harry the closest to Harry, never speaks about his primary school. That could be quite difficult to be anything else than a stay at home mum if those don't exist. Also Petunia, Lily, Molly against Mrs Granger, that's three mothers against one we don't know anything other in their life than their children (a least according to the Lexicon, and speaking about "work"). I have nothing against stay at home Mum, but to free completely JKR from the accusation of "inconscient sexism", that I probably should call "stereotypical sexism", I would like for Harry to meet the husband of Tonks and her children (Yes I know she's too young, but you get my meaning). K Firstly - and I'm not trying to be bitchy or get at you with this but 'inconscient' isn't a word in English, I *think* you mean unconscious or subconscious - I'm not entirely sure because I don't know *exactly what inconscient means in its native language. Secondly - I think there's a problem with your examples in that you seem to be assuming that they would necessarily go out to work if they didn't have kids and in the case of Petunia and Lily I think that's unlikely. Lily was in her very early twenties when she died and, as far as we can tell, a member of the Order of the Phoenix. At that age it's not shocking that she woudn't have decided exactly what she wanted to do with her life, especially if she'd been fighting Voldemort since she left school (which bearing in mind how short a time there had been between her leaving school and her death is a fairly reasonable assumption I think). Also her husband was wealthy and had no need to work so it seems that both of them devoted their life, what there was of it, to the Order and to their child. We have no indication that after Harry's birth Lily stayed home and James went out fighting the bad guys. It would have made sense for one of them to stay out of the fight - but they could have taken turns for all we know. The fact that you are assuming Lily was a stay at home mum with no life outside of her child and not assuming the same for James does indeed show a subconscious sexism - on your part not on JKR's. Petunia is slightly different, yes she would be in a different role than her husband, in my opinion, and have stayed at home even without a child - but I don't believe that it would have been anything to do with society but more to do with her attitudes. She wants to be normal, no make that supernormal, she wants to be the perfect stereotype - and if she were to have a job outside of the home it would be terribly out of character for her. She is actively trying to be a stereotype - she's probably a member of the WI and possibly the Amateur Dramatic society and she no doubt hosts wonderful social dinner parties for the parts of society she wants to impress (ie other middle class people). Th other problem with your theory is that you're saying the unconscious sexism is with JKR rather than society in general - it *is* still more usual for the mother to stay home with the kids if one of the parents needs to and JKR's books are (if you ignore the whole magic and dragons thing ) realistic. She could have had Arthur be a stay at home parent and all the other mothers go out to work but that wouldn't have been realistic because men who stay at home are still in the minority. It's not sexism, it's realism. If I were writing a book set in 1950s Deep South America I wouldn't have blacks and whites treated as equal - that's not racism, it's realism. If I wrote a book set in the modern world focussing on politics I wouldn't make 50% of the House of Commons female and 30% (or whatever the correct figure is) from ethnic minorites - it might be more egalitarian that way but it wouldn't be realistic and more to the point it would mean that that was what people focussed on rather than the plot I was trying to write about. Laurence Maybe Molly isn't a stay at home Mum, but Ron never talked about the job of her mother, instead we see Arthur and Percy going to work, and never have we heard about Molly having to take a day off to be there for her children, we never heard her talking about going back to work, even if Ginny isn't home anymore. It looks a lot like a stay at home Mum stereotype. K And I don't see a problem with this. Stay at home mums exist, we've only seen two throughout the entire series. Laurence If she's so strong, why don't we ever hear about her public life? What I mean is, in fanon at least, it's quite common for Arthur to be candidate to be MoM which is to "govern" the +/- 30.000 wizards and witches of the UK, and Molly. reigns over the 8 people of her family, well, sorry if I don't find it equal. But I've never come across a fic where MOLLY becomes MoM (oooh, plot bunny there!), and I think that is quite connected to her canon description. K Well it's nice to know that you can't be a strong character if your life is centered around your family! Molly is clearly the heart of her family, she's obviously considered an equal Member of the Order since Dumbledore treats her no differently from the way he treats Arthur, she is one of the first he trusts with the secret of Sirius' innocence, he trusts her to be able to protect Harry when he stays with the family over the summer - as you say Arthur goes out to work, he'd be useless if Voldemort attacked during the day because he wouldn't be there. And as for your comments about fanon - Arthur is about as likely to become the next Minister of Magic as Hedwig is, he's a minor official in an out of favour department - and he likes it that way. Molly is also unlikely to become MoM, but so are Remus and Hagrid and Mad Eye and Tonks - this doesn't make them less strong as characters, it doesn't make them less significant - it just means that that is not the direction in which they are focussing their energies. Laurence Same as before, I preach the "we don't know", and so for me stereotypical role means stereotypical sexism which is true for "our" world too. My point of view is that the space given for women in JKR's world is not better, and I would even say a little bit worse for what we have seen, than a European (or American) western country that I personally consider sexist. K So because we see two stay at home mums that automatically means women in JKR's world have little power? What about Umbridge? Or Bellatrix? Or the Female MoM we saw briefly mentioned. Heck the entire school system is based on something founded a thousand years ago by two men and two women. You are basing your entire theory on two individuals - well if you use such a small survey group you can prove anything. Let's take Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff for example shall we? Based on the two of them you could argue that the ww is practically a millenium ahead of our world in equality between the sexes. Maybe they've even got to the point where a woman can do whatever the heck she darn well pleases without someone trying to draw an analogy to how women in general are treated as if we're some kind of sub species. The fact is that if you don't have staff or house elves then *someone* has to stay home to look after the kids, in the Weasley's case that is Molly, but that doesn't make it any more or less likely that in the family along the road the woman is also the primary care giver. Laurence For me, there is sexism as soon as you find it more "normal" to find a stay at home Mum, than a stay at home Dad (still not met in JKR's world, for how much Mum!), or that if you're a women with a career, you can't have children. Have we ever heard of the family members of the professors? Where are Mr Sprout, Mr Mac McGonagall, Monsieur Pince? Where are their children? K Well what about Mrs Dumbledore and their twelve kids, or Mrs Flitwick or Mrs Snape? For that matter the only career person we know about with a family is Arthur Weasley. The fact is we don't have enough evidence to argue that women with kids can't have careers any more than we have enough evidence to argue that men with kids can. We have one or two at the most individual anecdotes. The fact that you are taking these totally inconclusive facts and assuming that it shows all women have no careers says a lot more about your subconscious views of the world than it does about JKRs. K From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 23:47:11 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:47:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? References: Message-ID: <002301c3d70a$eb219fc0$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88309 > Berit replies: > > At least there is evidence that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom always has > been some kind of a bathroom, and it can't have been remodelled too > heavily. If someone tried to remove or replace the sink, they might > have discovered the passageway underneath it. If not, they might have > destroyed or removed the "mechanism" that opens the chamber of > secrets; the copper tap on the sink: > > Quote: "It looked like an ordinary sink. They examined every inch of > it, inside and out, including the pipes below. And then Harry saw it: > scratched on the side of one of the copper taps was a tiny snake." > (CoS p. 222 UK Ed). > > So at least the sink and its copper tap must be the original one. > K Actually I think that proves it's been remodelled at some point because it looked like an ordinary sink, not a thousand year old sink. I don't exactly know how they would remodel without moving the tap - but then they would probably remodel with magic rather than calling in a plumber so it's more a case of transfiguring things than moving them too much. There may even be spells where you can add the provision when transfiguring things that you want it to still work at the end - otherwise you'd need the detailed plans of where the plumbing goes every time you wanted to change things. The fact is if it looks like a modern bathroom then either it's been pretty heavily remodelled over the last thousand years, or Slytherin and co could see the future and tell what developments in technology (obviously magical technology not muggle technology) were going to happen over that period. K From Intensefancyblue at aol.com Fri Jan 9 03:25:18 2004 From: Intensefancyblue at aol.com (Intensefancyblue at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:25:18 EST Subject: official-secrecy question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88310 I think I have an answer for that question about the curriculum. In the HP-lexicon they have something on academics here's the site: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/hogwarts_academics.html I was also curious about what N.E.W.T.s & O.W.L.s were so I went to this site: www.hp-lexicon.org/essay-news-owls.html Here's the site list of classes offered: www.hp-lexicon.org/classes.html Hope this clears up whether or not they were getting a good education. By the way, check out the booklist as well. It's amazing. Intensefancyblue From hermione978 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 20:33:40 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:33:40 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88311 --- I had the same theory myself about Ron Weasley. It was also stated that a major character, one of the three, will not make it to the end of book seven- at least not alive. Ron Weasley may have his days numbered.. :0( Hermione978 From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Fri Jan 9 16:07:32 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:07:32 -0500 Subject: (FILK) Charms on a Goat Message-ID: <410-220041591673215@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88312 Haggrid First Wrote: > Aberforth's Delight Then CMC Submitted: > The Love Goat Then Haggrid Posted: >> Aberforth's Afternoon Delight To Which I Say: You men are sick, Sick, SICK! Heh...may I join ya? ;)> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Charms on a Goat (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune "A Kiss From a Rose" by Seal) Always wanted to filk this song...I just would not have imagined myself filking it in this context... It could have been worse...I could have made it "A Kiss From a Goat" Midi is here: http://www.wtv-zone.com/dirtyknees/RoseMidi-1.html Dumbledore: My brother's odd behavior was found by the Ministry It became a disgrace to our family We hoped that the press would not find out the truth But it they got - his rep was shot The papers all wrote About Aberforth's goat the next day * They said: "He performed improper charms on a goat, it's depraved" Ooooo...the more I think of it the sicker I feel, yeah Now, I'm not sure he can read I don't know if he'd acted brave ** There is so much a man can handle So much he can take But it came: the scandal, the stigma, the shame (Merlin!) To him it was a growing obsession he wouldn't hide Kept telling him, "It's not healthy, Abe." But did my brother hide? He did not He held his head high And went about business just the same (repeat *) He cast charms on a goat, he's depraved He cast charms on a goat, he's depraved (Aberforth's goat) He cast charms on a goat, he's depraved He cast charms on a goat, he's depraved (repeat ** / * / * ) Now, I'm not sure he can read I don't know if he'd acted brave -Gail B...who, whenever she hears this song, pictures Jim Carey scampering around in a Riddler outfit...whee! houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 9 16:09:01 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:09:01 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88313 Hi, I said this earlier and I will repeat it here. The essential feature of squibs seems to be inability of doing spellwork. I mean whether they are simple or complex, charms or jinxes or curses, transfiguration or DADA, most of the magic seems to be concentrated in an incantation which has to be muttered to get the result. For some reason, squibs seem to be lacking this ability. So kwikspell might be an alternative way doing magic. But may be not so effective. We cannot be sure that it is swindling entirely without further evidence. Bye spangb From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 15:38:44 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:38:44 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts (new theory, long) In-Reply-To: <20040108201419.93360.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88314 Hermione978 wrote: > What are you basing your marriage theory on? The support for my theory (that Petunia had been previously married to a wizard who is prominent in the storyline, perhaps Snape) is : 1. The much discussed fact that she seems to have intimate knowledge of the wizarding world. 2. The support in the books that she and Lily are in fact from a muggle family and that Harry is not a descendant of a pure wizarding family but is half and half like Voldemort (I think this contradicts the "squib or descendant of squibs" theory) and the importance of that to the theme of the books. 3. The fact that Petunia clearly has a secret and that she is clearly being effectively pressured to keep Harry -- perhaps by threat of disclosure of that secret, which accordingly must be one to completely turn her life upside down. 4. Prominent mentions of the fact that sometimes muggles unknowingly marry witches or wizards (Voldemort, Seamus) and that this bit is also reinforced in the movie (we hear Seamus explain how his dad found out his mom was a witch only after they were married). 5. The following interview q/a "Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? Good question - yes, a few of them but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why". This is from Comic Relief live Chat on March 2001. That is all I have, but think it adds up.... ROLSHAN From rmm7e at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 16:32:08 2004 From: rmm7e at yahoo.com (Regina) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:32:08 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julie Stevenson" > 3) Why hasn't anyone made reference to the fact that Snape hasn't always > been known as Snape, before now? It's not like he's a stranger in these > parts -- there are still a number of Snape's yearmates and former teachers > around who would know what his original name was. Or are they somehow part > of a conspiracy to not call him by that old name? Perhaps Perseus Evans was his birth name but for most of his life, including his school years, he has been Snape. Remember, the mythological Perseus was sent away as a baby to try to thwart the prophecy that he'd kill his grandfather (it didn't work; he killed him accidentally years later). If Perseus Evans was sent away as a baby, it's possible that his new, anagram-ed name was given at that time. Maybe he's the only one who knows he's Lily's brother or half- brother or whatever. Except for Dumbledore, he knows everything. --Regina S. From rmm7e at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 16:38:44 2004 From: rmm7e at yahoo.com (Regina) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:38:44 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think > one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. I have to agree that all signs point to Ron. The only ray of hope I have is in the first Divination class in PoA where Harry reads Ron's tea leaves and says "you're going to suffer but be very happy". Of course, he could be happy and then die...and Ron's response to Harry's prediction is "you need your inner eye tested". Hmph. Haven't cheered myself up at all with that. --Regina S. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 16:47:57 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:47:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > Abagail's Discussion Questions: > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a > patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most > often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that > he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome > attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's > statement shed a new light on him? I would assume that muggle baiting is the reason for many things that muggles take for granted as everyday experiences and certain wizards use to get their jollies off (from the shrinking door keys to the plumbing incidents). If he is condescending to them, I think that it is only because he appreciates that their ignorance of the magical world makes his job just a little easier. > 2. Arthur's statement that Lucius Malfoy was trying to sneak > into the courtroom is presumably a misdirection on JKR's part. > The corridor in which Harry and Arthur find him is the one > leading to the Department of Mysteries - was he perhaps > trying to sneak in? What business does Lucius have with Fudge? In GoF, Hudge says twice that the Malfoy family has always been donating to generous causes, first in the Quidditch world cup scene, when he gave money to St. Mungo's and got tickets in the top box, and in the Parting of the ways chapter, when Harry names him as a DE and Fudge defends Malfoy's record. I thought that since Malfoy has been openly against DD since CoS, that he was simply helping to poison the Minister's mind against the Headmaster. It also may have been that Malfoy was going to try to get into the DoM. This esd very early in the book, and LV might not have known anything about the retreval process for prophecys. So maybe Malfoy was bribing Fudge for info on that. (the conspiracy theorist in me just started giggling manaically) > 3. Lucius greets Harry as 'Patronus Potter'. Later in the book > Bellatrix refers to Sirius as 'Animagus Black'. In the latter case, > a person is referred to by the magical ability that distinguishes > him - is this also true for Harry? We know that his ability to > conjure a corporeal Patronus is unusual in a boy so young, but > does this ability - and the moniker - mark Harry as a protective > figure (after all, in conjuring the Patronus, he was also > protecting his helpless cousin)? Is it significant that the only > two people we've met who've used this fashion of referring to > people are Death Eaters? I think that "patronus Potter" was just a term of condescension and dislike, and that "animagus Black" was used to not only denote the person Bellatrix was fighting, but also to distance herself from her cousin. > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? The Weasleys are the prototypical "poor but happy" family, or at least they were until the begining of OotP. The resentment on Arthur's part, I think, has to do with the fact that Malfoy can buy his way into the good graces of the minister, while Arthur and the others who are on the side of truth must struggle to get themselves heard. The Weasley's financial problems are not uncommon in the muggle world, and are a totally understandable source of stress for anyone. Arthur, having just seen his almost like a son Harry nearly get convicted by the Wizengamot for underage magic and confronted by his known rival, is understandaby stressed. And Ron's embarassment over his family's financail situation is also understandable: no one wants to be the poor kid at school who can't afford the latest shoes or cell phone or broomstick as the case may be. > 5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to > believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could > Dumbledore know this for sure? I think that Fudge's reaction is totally believable from what we saw at the end of GoF, before anyone had a chance to Imperio him (or didn't they?). DD understands that Fudge will resist the knowledge of LV's return, and I think that he acted as acordingly as his character could, no Imperio about it. > 6. Why does Harry's scar burn when he returns to Grimmauld > place? Is Voldemort angry or happy about something, or is he > reacting to Harry's thoughts about Dumbledore? Perhaps Malfoy has just informed LV that Harry will not be expelled and will be returning to Hoqwarts under DD's protection. Maybe there was a plan to attack Harry (again, before the knowledge that he would need Harry alive to retrieve the prophecy) upon his expulsion, and now that plan could not be put into effect. > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's > a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at > this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the > position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe > that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will > Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this > acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as > a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who > is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? I think that this is totally in character for Hermione, especially in the later examples when she tries to explain Cho and Ginny to Harry and Ron. She is their female sounding board, anyway, and her emotional maturity is being stressed here. I think, though, that Harry will develop his own emotional instincts, and by the end of OotP he allready has: when he feels sorrry for Luna and offers to help her look for her posessions. Harry will grow up eventually. We just need to give him time to prosess. (Ron "insensitive wart" Weasley, on the other hand, may need to be whipped into shape by Hermione.) > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that > she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? She must know who he is by now, just as she knows who Sirius and Lupin are, but there is no denying that Ron DID like having Scabbers as a pet, no matter what he said about him. Scabbers and Wormtail seem to often be refered to as seperate characters, and if I had my books with me I would look up some cannon on that (anyone help me there?). > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. > Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the > revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter > affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting > to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. > Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with > Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? Mrs. Weasley has seven kids, remember, and it is not uncommon for people with lots of kids to sometimes forget a few of them. She does the same thing with Ron all the time when she gives him cornbeef sandwitches and maroon sweaters, neither of which he likes. (I know that, as one of four kids, I was forever called by the names of either my sister or one of my female cousins or my childhood friends, and to try to get my name out of my grandmother, who has sixteen grandchildren, is near impossible). And I don't think that she was bribing Ron at all. She didn't seem to have had a bargain with him (get made a prefect and we'll buy you a broom), it seems to be more of a reward, like Percy's owl. > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? I think that Ron was a good choice. He gets decent marks, plays passable Quidditch, and he has good leadership skills that have manifested themselves in the chess match in SS. I think that the choice of Ron for prefect was because he was not totally exceptional. I always found it easier to take direction from someone who was an equal in certain ways, and not superior. > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does > Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? Ron is jealous (IMHO) of the twins' popularity. He wants to be like them, and I think, would rather not be an authority figure. But I don't see the twins' "slightly malicious needling" as anything more than the actions of brothers poking fun at their younger sibling. > 12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's badge, > and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of emotional > maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of that > kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his > grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this > situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something > to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly being > in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising > this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during > OOP? Harry is, after all is said and done, a fifteen year old boy. To expect him to be totally emotionally mature at this age, and in his situation, is, IMHO, not realistic. With all that he has been through, it is easy to see how hos anger and sadness could easily temporarily cloud his emotional development. That Harry could find it in himself twice that year to look beyond himself and think of Ron and Luna before himself is something to be proud of. As I said before, Harry will grow up eventually, and it is these imperfections in his character that make him such an interesting hero. > 13. Sirius tells us that James wasn't a prefect, and yet we know from > PS/SS that he was Head Boy. Several suggestions have been made > in the attempt to resolve this paradox, among them the claim that > this is a FLINT, the suggestion that a HB isn't necessarily selected > from among the prefects, and the suggestion that Lupin was > stripped of his prefect's badge, which was given to James. Which, > if any, do you think is true? What do you think this bodes for Harry's > chances of being made Head Boy? Assuming that LV is still around, DD might again make the case that Harry has quite enough to deal with to also be head boy. But then again, DD might change his mind, and use the title to show confidence in Harry, and I think that he would make an excellent head boy (though I am admittedly an American, and I don't really know what a head boy does). I think that in JKR's world you don't necessarily have to be a prefect to be a head boy or girl, and there is no reason to assume that this is a FLINT. > 14. Why does Moody show Harry the photograph of the Order, and > why does he think Harry would be interested in the picture of his > parents? Is he unaware of the reaction Harry might have to seeing > his parents with Pettigrew, or is he purposefully trying to provoke > that reaction? Is Moody unaware that Harry does have pictures of > his parents, and perhaps thinks that this is the first time Harry has > seen a photograph of them? Maybe Moody is of the opinion, like DD, that the truth is important, and that Harry should know what it is that the WW is facing. I also thought that Moody just wanted to show Harry that his parents were brave enough to stand up for the right side, and maybe give Harry a shot of confidence that he was sorely lacking at the moment (though showing him a picture whose subjects almost all endede up dead may not have been the best way to do that). > 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the > original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown > people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? > Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? This was probably done to emphasize the fact that this is a real war that the WW will be fighting and that there were dozens of families, not just the Potters and the Longbottoms, who were effected by it. I don't know who of the late original order will show up, but it would be interesting to meet their offspring, if any, and see how they react to Harry and to the rebirth of LV and the opening of the war. > 16. Does Mrs. Weasley's Boggart really conjure the image of both > twins dead together? What does this tell us about her perception > of the twins? What does it tell us about JKR's? I think that she (and maybe to some extent the readers) see the twins as a single entity, one person divided up between to bodies. Whether this is common for twins or not I don't know, but it does strike me as strange that the two of them don't seem to have any seperate interests. > 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained > her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so > ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told > about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's > woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the > coming war? Mrs. Weasley, like anyone who has to send a kid into battle, is understandably stressed. I think that she will handle it well, and seeing as boggarts have the ability to present us with our deepest fears, and seeing as how badly we have seen people react to them (Harry and Hermione most notably) it is not hard to believe that she took the images for real. Meri submits her answers for discussion. From hermione978 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 16:32:27 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:32:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040109163227.96884.qmail@web21501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88318 Sigune wrote: > This is possibly a stupid question, but is there > an exact definition of a Squib? SQUIB: A person with no magic ability born to magical parents. Many squibs in the book don't carry wands. The quick spell course of study is a crock- if you have no magic ability you can't obtain this. You have to born with it, otherwise how do you explain purebloods and those with it who are considered muggle born (one of the parents is typically magical). Squibs are not invited to study magic because they are unable, even with instruction, to do so. They are considered a disgrace to the wizarding world. Hermione978 From hermione978 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 17:03:43 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:03:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: I've searched the archives....Percy Weasley??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040109170343.83795.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88319 barbienut75 wrote: > I've read in several other places, that He may go to the Dark Side, > does anyone else think this, will he see, that the MOM was wrong > about LV and stay on the good side? He does seem to want to be > important, and maybe LV will give him some power he can't refuse? I agree. Percy has always been obsessed with being important and in charge. He was a school prefect. He was head boy. He now works for the ministry of magic under an influential person- Barty Crouch. While I feel crouch may be ok, Ludo Bagman who gets mentioned I don't trust him as far as I could spit in the wind. His own dismissed elf in book 4, Winky, even let slip from what she knew having served Crouch that Bagman was bad news. I think Percy has some underlying need to feel important and be in the limelight having come from such a large family. It would make sense, coupled with book evidence above, that he would easily become swayed by darker powers and influences without knowing it or not wanting to acknowledge that he knew. Hermione978 From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 9 17:22:44 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:22:44 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: <002301c3d70a$eb219fc0$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88320 K wrote: Actually I think that proves it's been remodelled at some point because it looked like an ordinary sink, not a thousand year old sink. I don't exactly know how they would remodel without moving the tap - but then they would probably remodel with magic rather than calling in a plumber so it's more a case of transfiguring things than moving them too much. There may even be spells where you can add the provision when transfiguring things that you want it to still work at the end - otherwise you'd need the detailed plans of where the plumbing goes every time you wanted to change things. The fact is if it looks like a modern bathroom then either it's been pretty heavily > remodelled over the last thousand years, or Slytherin and co could see the future and tell what developments in technology (obviously magical technology not muggle technology) were going to happen over that period. Berit replies: Well, I have canon facts that suggests the bathroom probably has not been remodelled... Quote: "'That tap's never worked', said Myrtle brightly, as he [Harry] tried to turn it.'" (CoS p. 222 UK Ed). It's kind of implied the reason that tap has never worked is because it has a different use than the usual one; it's the key to the secret chamber, not an ordinary tap where water pours out if you turn it. So; if the Hogwarts caretakers/staff at any time in Hogwarts history thought the bathroom needed upgrading, wouldn't they have wanted to replace the tap that didn't work? Logical, right? Let's say they tried to, but it wouldn't budge? Wouldn't that have arisen some suspicion, especially when the handiman tok a closer look at the stubborn tap and discovered the tiny snake on its side? Since the tap is still in Myrtle's bathroom, a thousand years after Salazar himself put the entrance to the secret chamber there, I'm inclined to think the bathroom has not changed. My guess is that if the sinks needed modernizing, someone just waved their wand at changed their shapes to make them look more modern, leaving the taps and the pipes intact. They couldn't have used too much energy and paid too much attention to the bathroom, because then they would invariably have noticed the snaky tap that didn't work and needed replacement... Which to me suggests noone really bothered with modernizing the bathroom, ever. And by the way; we don't know what thousand year old magic-made sinks at Hogwarts looked like, and neither did Ron and Harry, so we can't really know whether they have been replaced with newer models :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 9 17:37:35 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:37:35 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88321 hermione978 wrote: I had the same theory myself about Ron Weasley. It was also > stated that a major character, one of the three, will not make it to > the end of book seven- at least not alive. Ron Weasley may have his > days numbered.. :0( Berit replies: But hasn't Rowling said in an interview that Harry's closest friends, meaning Hermione and Ron, won't bite it? I think I've read that somewhere? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 17:43:49 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:43:49 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Add to this the evidence countering the Snape!Vampire hypothesis > (that he doesn't show the behavioural characteristics associated with > the breed), and I hope you will understand my deep scepticism. I'm not necessarily on board with the Snape-Vampire theory either but... It isn't just coincidence that all those "clues" pertaining to Snape are in the book. The biggest evidence there is that he may be a vampire is the drawing of Snape that JK did. She drew a picture of what she pictures Snape to look like. It sure looked like a Vampire to me. Diana From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 17:23:17 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:23:17 -0500 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88323 Rolshan said: >2. The support in the books that she and Lily are in fact from a >muggle family and that Harry is not a descendant of a pure wizarding >family but is half and half like Voldemort (I think this contradicts >the "squib or descendant of squibs" theory) and the importance of >that to the theme of the books. Harry is not a 'half & half' or 'halfblood' like Seamus Finnegan or Tom Riddle. In both of those cases, the mother of Seamus & Tom was a witch, and the father was a muggle. In Harry's case, his mother was a muggle-born witch (at least, that's what we're led to believe), and his father was a wizard-born wizard. In order for Harry to be a halfblood, one of those parents would've had to have been a muggle, and we know that both Lily & James Potter were magical because...they both went to Hogwarts. So when Tom Riddle/Voldemort compares Harry's parentage to himself at the end of Chamber of Secrets, either he's wrong/confused, or he's deliberately downgrading Lily Evans-Potter from the status of muggle-born witch to just plain muggle. But the real evidence shows that Harry is a full-blooded wizard. Remember the discussion between Harry & Draco in Madam Malkin's in Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone where Draco asks about Harry's parentage, and Harry responds, "My parents were a wizard and a witch, if that's what you mean." And Draco's satisfied with that and doesn't sneer at this background. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 18:10:38 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:10:38 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: <3CF100D0-4298-11D8-9B26-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pen Robinson wrote: > > >>> Carol: > >>> > >>> ...edited... > >>> > >>> However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that > >>> they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or > >>> even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my > >>> soul!" .... Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a > >>> Muggle institution, ...edited... > >>> > >>> Carol, > >> > Pen: > > I seem to be in the mood to contribute to this thread, even though > the subject resurfaces regularly ... > > I celebrate Christmas in the same way that the WW does: exchange of > presents, consumption of feast, decoration of premises. .... > > None of the above seems to me to have religious significance. I > would classify it as 'Tradition > bboy_mn: Two points- Whether or not a person goes to church is not the measure of whether they are Christians or not. Certainly, if you did a random survey in the 'western' world, you would find many many people who emphatically call themselves Christians, but who confess to rarely, if ever, going to church. I would go one step father, and say that there are far more Christians who don't go to church than there are those who do. (That's my opinion.) Next is the point that always comes up in this discussion, traditional winter and spring celebrations have occurred long before Christianity and Christmas (or Easter). In fact, what we call Christmas draws on the mid-winter celebrations of many different European cultures and traditions; clutures and traditions that were blended and evolved into the current celebration. In addition, Christmas and Easter are school term breaks, if nothing else, they are an excuse to pause between terms and give both teachers and students a well deserved break. So, even if the holidays weren't named 'Christmas' and 'Easter', they would probably still occur, and would probably still occur near the same point in time. > Pen: > > In omitting any reference to the Christian roots of these festivals, > JKR is (a) avoiding the issue of whether or not wizards have > religious beliefs, and what these might be; and, more importantly > (b) mirroring the normal behaviour of British society. > > ...edited... > > If Hogwarts did not take any notice of Christmas, it would feel as > though it were truly part of an alien society - and as I see it, the > Wizarding World is supposed to be hidden right next to us. That is > part of its charm. bboy_mn: This goes to my previous statements about JKR's writing style, she is able to create an extremely vivid, believable, and comfortable world by drawing on images (stereotypes, common myth and folklore, etc...) that were are very familiar with. > Pen: > > ... I suspect that JKR has her WW celebrating Halloween because of > the vague notion that it is a 'witchy' kind of night, ...edited... > > Pen bboy_mn: And once again, JKR is playing on images and commonly held beliefs that make the wizard world very comfortable and vivid for us. While I could question the existance of Christianity in the wizard world, JKR makes it seem like such a common and mundane aspect of everyday life, that I believe it when I read it, and that is the truest test of an author. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 18:08:04 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:04 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julie Stevenson" wrote "Harry is not a 'half & half' or 'halfblood' like Seamus Finnegan or Tom Riddle. In both of those cases, the mother of Seamus & Tom was a witch, and the father was a muggle." Agreed, I was speaking in shorthand and lost this valuable point. Nonetheless, I think Harry's muggle heritage is significant, as is his beloved mother's status as "filthy little mudblood" as Snape calls her. I think the theme of "choices not birth", parallels with Nazism, etc. would all be diluted if it turned out Harry was from an old wizarding family on both sides (even with intervening squib generations). I also do think that a measure of parallelism to Voldemort's ancestry is important (even if imperfect). In any case, the reason for positing that Petunia is a squib is her suprisingly intimate knowledge of the wizarding world and to give her a secret the exposure of which she fears. I was trying to propose an alternative explanation for the knowledge which would also consitute such a secret and would maintain the muggle ancestry for Harry on his mother's side... ROLSHAN ROLSHAN From thren at subreality.com Fri Jan 9 18:39:54 2004 From: thren at subreality.com (Thren) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:39:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FFEF57A.7050401@subreality.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88326 Julie Stevenson wrote: >Harry is not a 'half & half' or 'halfblood' like Seamus Finnegan or Tom >Riddle. In both of those cases, the mother of Seamus & Tom was a witch, and >the father was a muggle. > >In Harry's case, his mother was a muggle-born witch (at least, that's what >we're led to believe), and his father was a wizard-born wizard. In order for >Harry to be a halfblood, one of those parents would've had to have been a >muggle, and we know that both Lily & James Potter were magical >because...they both went to Hogwarts. > Thren: There was a rather involved thread on this a while back, which I unfortunately can't seem to find in the archives (I think my m4d s34rching skillz are on holiday). So I'll say this- just because both his parents were magical doesn't mean he's not a halfblood. Harry is referred to as a halfblood several times in the books, not the least of which is by Dumbledore (that Voldie chose a halfblood like himself- my copy of OotP went AWOL, so no direct quote). He's a full-blooded wizard, but if you skip back over his parents, two out of his four (1/2) grandparents are Muggles. That still qualifies him as halfblood. I suspect that this term might be used for anyone who's neither Muggleborn nor pureblood, just for some more literally (like one parent of each) than others. From siskiou at msn.com Fri Jan 9 18:49:48 2004 From: siskiou at msn.com (Susanne) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:49:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <388961682.20040109104948@msn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88327 Hi, Thursday, January 8, 2004, 12:33:40 PM, hermione978 wrote: > It was also > stated that a major character, one of the three, will not make it > to > the end of book seven- at least not alive. Can you point to a source for this? I've never heard this anywhere before. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at msn.com Visit our two pet bunnies: http://home.earthlink.net/~siskiou/ From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 19:08:05 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:08:05 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] official-secrecy question References: <1073601298.18511.79111.m18@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000801c3d6e3$ef035880$96e76151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 88328 Meri wrote: >Check in Sorcerer's Stone, in the "Diagon Alley" chapter when Hagrid >is reading the Daily Prophet and tells Harry about the Ministry of >Magic. I believe there he mentions why the WW is "best left alone". >Hope it helps. Sadly too late for Heather's essay, but it's worth noting that canon does indeed have only slight references to the _reasons_ the WW keeps itself to itself, and by virtue of that, leaves us to think carefully about the why and the how (and indeed the when!) It doesn't take too much thought to realise how the WW would be treated if it went public tomorrow: what could be looted for profit would be looted for profit, what could be used for power would be used for power, and the rest would be trampled underfoot. But it's also interesting to note that the "official" separation came about at the end of the 17th century, at the time when the Muggle world was beginning its period of "Enlightenment" and scientific curiosity, when it began to be believed that science had the answer to everything and could understand everything by taking it apart to see how it worked. Perhaps the Council/Ministry could see which was the wind was blowing and decided that now was the time to get thoroughly out of sight. "Sandman" fans might notice an interesting parallel here! Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 19:36:07 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:36:07 -0000 Subject: Filk: Nanny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88329 Sigh. First Haggridd, then CMC, then Haggridd again, then Gail. You guys are corrupting me, you know. So to y'all I dedicate, "Nanny" a filk on "Mandy" by Barry Nannylow, er, Manilow. Albus sings offstage as narrator. Aberforth sings the chorus. Albus: Aberforth, for all his life, Never had a gal or wife. Most peculiar man, With Capricorn intrests. I guess it could be worse- He avoids incests. Daily Prophet, yesterday- Found out about Abbie's play. Printed in the news, Near the sports section. A censored photogragh Of his sweet affection. Aberforth: Oh, Nanny, You left and now my heart is breaking. Yes, they took you away, Oh, Nanny, Well, I charmed you and stopped you from shaking. And I miss you today, Oh, Nanny. Albus: Now Aberforth's the butt of jokes. Subject to stares and laughs and pokes. These he just ignores, with such great bravery. Completely unaware of his depravery.* On with head held high- To this he pays no heed. Either acting brave Or he can not read. Aberforth: Oh, Nanny, You left and now my heart is breaking. Yes, they took you away, Oh, Nanny, Well, I charmed you and stopped you from shaking. And I miss you today, Oh, Nanny (repeat and fade) *I made up *depravery*. Depravity didn't rhyme, and I thought, "well, if the act of being brave is bravery, then the act of being depraved ought well to be depravery. Just like Buick ought to rhyme with quick." Work with me on this one. Please? From evankimjeff at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 18:49:26 2004 From: evankimjeff at yahoo.com (KIM MACKLIN) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape/Narcissa as spy Message-ID: <20040109184926.86013.qmail@web14902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88330 I just began rereading COS and the a thought came to me. Dobby leaving home to come and warn Harry. Remember in OoP when Kreacher went to the Malfoy's it was after Sirius told him to "get out". I was wondering if maybe Narcissa somehow gave Dobby indirect permission to leave the house as well. I know he said he would have to put his ears in the oven door, or something like that to punish himself, but the whole thing made me think. Maybe I am reading too much into it having read all of the other book numerous times, over anylizing things. It seems Dobby leaves his "masters" house alot. One more thing, not associated at all with the subject line, in SS there is a mention of a "forgetfullness potion". Wonder if Neville has ever been secretly given this in his pumpkin juice? Kim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hermione978 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 19:10:07 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:10:07 -0000 Subject: geneology of Harry Potter: Something to think about. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88331 While re-reading passages of the Order of the Phoenix I took the time to chart out the geneology of Harry Potter through Sirus Black. There are some startling things in this line of blood. As Ollivander would say "curious, very curious." What's curious- in Chaper 6 of the Phoneix book, Harry Potter discovers through sirus that there are family connections to both the Weasley's and the Malfoys. It appears that Narcissa, a sister to Andromeda (a cousin), married Lucius and then came Draco. It also shows in this geneology that Arther and Molly Weasley are cousins of Sirus, unknown to Ron and his siblings at this time of course. What I found interesting about the Weasley's is what Sirus tells Harry when he finds their names among the blood lines: (page 113, Order of the phoenix)- "if ever there were a bunch of blood traitors, it's the Weasleys". It is an interesting paradox when you consider the character of Percy Weasley and his betrayal of the family and the followers of Dumbledore. It is a curious detail in deed. Later in the book, towards the end, Harry learns about his life prophecy. He learns that the only one who can touch the prophecy is the person whom it is about. You will remember when it was taken at the Dept. of Mysteries that NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM picked it up. The prophecy was marked "Harry Potter,?" The prophecy stated that a boy born at the end of July, denied Voldemort three times, was marked and made equal to Voldemort in strength would rise up to put an end to it. Harry meets the prophecies telling, however, NEVILLE was also born at the same time of Harry Potter and has his parents in St. Mungos for cruciatus curse gone wrong thanks to Voldemorts followers and now lives with his grandmother. Neville also appears to act somewhat backward and clumsy, often forgetful of things he should know. Perhaps he is truly himself, maybe something more lies there from his parents attack, only unlike Harry who is scar bearing, Neville suffers in other ways. It is curious indeed. Hermione978 From rtb333 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 19:28:34 2004 From: rtb333 at yahoo.com (rtb333) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:28:34 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88332 I know that it was discussed earlier on, but I was wonder if anyone had any insights into what the Small thing in COS that will be big in Book 6 is. Personally, I think that it will be the Hand of Glory. This was in the book, but it also made an apearance in the movie. This object is common in thief folklore. I think that Harry will be attacked at home through the use of this object and he will hear the person coming, like he heard Moody in OOTP. Harry will escape and have to stay with the weasleys or the order before the next school year. I also believe that there is a spy in the order for Voldemort. I think that this is the reason that information is kept on a need to know basis. I know that Kreacher turned out to be a spy, but there is going to be someone else. Possibly Mundugus Fletcher. I think it is more than a coincidence that he abandoned his post that night. rtb333 (who thinks that it is possible that Percy is secretly working for the order) From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 18:58:46 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:58:46 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: <388961682.20040109104948@msn.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susanne wrote: > > Can you point to a source for this? > I've never heard this anywhere before. > > The only thing I can think of is this quote: "It's great to hear feedback from the kids. Mostly they are really worried about Ron. As if I'm going to kill Harry's best friend. What I find interesting is only once has anyone said to me, "Don't kill Hermione," and that was after a reading when I said no one's ever worried about her. Another kid said, "Yeah, well, she's bound to get through O.K." They see her as someone who is not vulnerable, but I see her as someone who does have quite a lot of vulnerability in her personality." from TIME PACIFIC October 30, 2000 | NO. 43 Essay: A Conversation with J.K. Rowling - Personally I am sure all three kids will survive... but that is a "gut feeling" not evidence. ROLSHAN From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 22:24:07 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:24:07 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Regina" wrote: > > Perhaps Perseus Evans was his birth name but for most of his life, > including his school years, he has been Snape. Remember, the > mythological Perseus was sent away as a baby to try to thwart the > prophecy that he'd kill his grandfather (it didn't work; he killed > him accidentally years later). If Perseus Evans was sent away as a > baby, it's possible that his new, anagram-ed name was given at that > time. Maybe he's the only one who knows he's Lily's brother or half- > brother or whatever. Why is your text above giving me crazy sudden images of things like Snape's being caused by Voldemort to kill his and (cousin?) Petunia's dad/grandfather, finding out later with chagrin who it was, and turning from the DE's, etc.? What nutty sudden images appeared in my mind from your words... smaragdina5 From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 22:45:19 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:45:19 -0000 Subject: Can Harry Potter Predict his Future??????? (Book #4 -Goblet of Fire) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Migdalia wrote: > > I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet. But I was > > wondering what everyone though about the fact that Harry Potter > > predicts his future correctly in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire > Berit replies: > > I don't think Harry and Ron's constructed predictions turned out to > be true. They are way too general, and the one that wasn't, hasn't > come true so far (the decapitation). You can make almost anything fit > those predictions. This HAS been brought up-- I am wondering if I even read it in something like Galadriel's Unofficial Guide when browsing in the bookstore, or just on this list. I think there were some variations in interpretations- the fight being not the task but the cold war between Harry and Ron, for instance- but overall it DID sound like gentle foreshadowing. Moreover, if Ron was doing the better predicting (Check Is Ron a Seer? threads) then Harry doesn't have to get everything right (like his decapitation... hm, makes me note the headless hats and headless hunt...) smaragdina5 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:05:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:05:32 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88336 > vmonte wrote: > It would be funny if Quirrell put garlic in his turbin to fight off > Voldemort's possesion. Maybe the real Vampire is Voldemort (as others > have mentioned). Maybe Quirrell wasn't a willing participant in his > possesion? > For example: > Quirrell's confrontation with Harry at the end of book 1 is very > peculiar. Harry tells Quirrell that he had heard him crying in a > classroom(?) and Quirrell responds that he sometimes has trouble > following his master's orders (not exact wording). I wonder if > Quirrell was forced into submission by Voldemort? Carol: We're told that Voldemort possessed Quirrell after Quirrell failed to steal the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. I don't think Quirrell had any say in the matter. Although he willingly brought Voldemort back to Britain from Albania, which suggests that he was already seduced into becoming Voldemort's servant before we even meet him, that doesn't mean he was willing to have Voldemort inside his head. Possession was evidently a punishment, and a cruel one. (Yes, I still have some pity for Quirrell at this point. He's still more a victim than a villain. He hasn't yet drunk unicorn's blood or threatened to kill a student.) As for vampires and garlic, if Voldemort were a vampire he would have bitten Quirrell, not possessed him. The garlic-stuffed turban, I think, is just the student's explanation for the horrible smell. The source of the stench is Voldemort himself. There may be garlic in Quirrell's classroom, however, since meeting a vampire is his excuse for stuttering and acting timid. (I need to do some fact-checking here.) How much of his timidity is genuine terror of Voldemort and how much is an act, I'm not sure. And since Quirrel is dead and out of the story (sorry, CV!), I don't suppose I'll ever find out. vmonte again: > Wasn't Voldemort very weak when he initially took over Quirrell's > body? Perhaps spells (or potions) where needed (early on) to keep > Quirrell submissive while Voldy's possesion was taking hold. The > classroom scene may have been one of the times that Quirrell > attempted to break through V's possesion? Maybe Quirrell was doing > the counter curse and Snape was actually cursing Harry during the > Quidditch game? Carol: No. Quirrell himself tells us otherwise. Snape was trying (as usual0 to save Harry, and his intentions (as usual) are misinterpreted by the other characters. Snape casting the countercurse is canon. vmonte: Regardless, it's obvious that by the end of book 1, > Quirrell is taken over completely by Voldemort (except for the moment > Q shows fear in his face). I wonder what side Snape is talking about > when has asks Quirrell were his loyalties lie? Carol: Clearly Snape knows that Quirrell is trying to steal the stone, and he's questioning Quirrell's loyalty to Dumbledore for that reason. But the suggestion that Quirrell may be loyal to someone other than Dumbledore suggests that Snape suspects Quirrell of wanting the stone for Dumbledore's rival and enemy, Voldemort. I don't think he would have used the words "where your loyalties lie" if he thought Quirrell was trying to obtain the stone for his own use. > > I realize that at the end of book 1 Quirrell sets the record straight > about Snape, telling Harry that Snape is on DD's side? Why would > Voldemort do this? Why exonerate Snape if Snape is your enemy? Carol: Quirrell wants the "credit" for cursing Harry to go to himself, not Snape, and he's setting the record straight before killing Harry. Diary!Tom Riddle and Imposter!Moody do exactly the same thing. I guess it's the criminal's urge to confess (and gloat), as well as a convenient plot device for letting the reader (and Harry) know what really happened. As for exonerating Snape, it doesn't matter to Quirrell because he thinks no one else will find out. Harry will be dead and Quirrell and Voldemort will be long gone before anyone finds his body. What *does* matter is that Voldemort knows that Snape has tried to thwart Quirrell, clearly showing his own loyalty to Dumbledore--and by extension, his opposition to Voldemort. Discussing Snape's behavior in this regard is not exactly exonerating Snape! vmonte: > It's also interesting because Tom Riddle tells Harry (in book 2) that > Ginny was forced into submission. Riddle also clears Ginny of any > guilt. Interesting... Carol: Again, the urge to confess--and triumph over your enemy by explaining to him exactly what you did to get him in your (supposed) power. . . Carol From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:06:04 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:06:04 -0000 Subject: FILK: A Goat is a Goat In-Reply-To: <410-220041591673215@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88337 > Haggrid First Wrote: > > Aberforth's Delight > > Then CMC Submitted: > > The Love Goat > > Then Haggrid Posted: > >> Aberforth's Afternoon Delight > Then Gail added: > Charms on a Goat This will not do. I cannot let this challenge go unmet! I take my place with the sickies and present (to the theme of that old TV sitcom, Mr. Ed) A Goat is a Goat Here is the midi: http://www.hamienet.com/13079.mid A goat's not a moat to float your boat And no one can gloat of a goat wild oat That is, I quote, unless the goat's with the famous Aberforth. Go right to the cote and ask the goat He'll give you the answer that you promote. Be careful that you don't misquote. Talk to Aberforth. You can keep all your barnyard friends with feathers and coats of silk My sweetie's not much to look at but at least I've got lots of milk A goat is a goat, a haute devote, And this one is game if a mote remote. You never heard a goat emote? Well listen to this. "I love Aberforth." ~ Constance Vigilance From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:19:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:19:24 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88338 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arcum42" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julie Stevenson" > wrote: > > > I'm familiar with the sequence you're referring to, Carol. And yes, > it does > > appear that the name Snape is familiar to the Marauder's Map...but > is it? Or > > is it just as Lupin notes, that the parchment is charmed to respond > with > > insults based on currently-viewed details about the person > attempting to > > extract information without the password? > > > does the Map have the ability to draw its information in order to > insult > > from the current holder, and it's not pre-programmed to recognize > Snape? I > > think it might be argued either way. > > It wouldn't need to draw its information from the current holder. > The Marauders Map displays the real name of everyone on it, therefore > it already knows the name Snape. OTOH, this indicate that his true > name is "Severus Snape" (He was shown on the map in PoA) > > > Of course, its possible, if it was an official name change, that it > may be reflected on the map. > > --Arcum If that were the case, wouldn't Bartemius crouch (Jr.) show up with his current name, Alastor Moody? I think it simply knows and reveals each person's real name. (BTW, there isn't a shred of evidence that Snape ever had any other name. The Perseus Evans anagram is not canonical, like Tom Marvolo Riddle/I am Lord Voldemort. It's a fan "discovery" and probably pure coincidence. Carol, who still thinks that Padfoot's "astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a professor" indicates clearly that he knew Severus Snape by that name when they were both teenagers. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:39:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:39:37 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88339 > > > Carol: ...edited...However, I'm surprised that the WW has godparents at all, or that they celebrate Christmas, Easter, have monks, and friars ..., or even .. use such expressions as "My Lord!" and "Bless my soul!" ....Christianity in all its variants, ..., is a Muggle institution, ...edited... > > bboy_mn: > (lots of insightful info snipped for brevity) > > That would mean that during favorable periods in history, witches > and > > wizard would have been exposed, and indeed converted to the > Christian > > faith. I see no incompatability between the witches and wizards we > see > > in the HP series, and the possibility of Christian faith. > > Ginger: > > To address both bboy_mn and Carol, let's not forget the influence of > Muggleborns. > > I have heard the expression "Oh, my God" from people who deny the > existance of a deity. It is merely an expression common in many > cultures. A Muggleborn attends Hogwarts, uses the expression, and > *poof* it catches on. Anyone remember the "cool" expressions that > went around school at that age? It's like Ron saying "mate" > constantly in OoP. > > Muggleborns may also have come from Christian families (or atheistic > families, or Jewish families.....you get the idea). One doesn't have > to leave one's faith behind when changing addresses. It is entirely > possible that, over the centuries, some Wizards have become > Christian. The customs, such as naming Godparents, may have > followed, whether the practicing of the faith did or not. > > For all we know, Lily may have mentioned having Godparents to James, > who thought it was a good idea to have someone designated to take > Harry should LV get them. It would have been a wise precaution. Or > Lily may have been a Christian, or of another faith which names > Godparents. Or may have had a friend who was.....The possibilities > are endless. > Ginger, who actually used to use the expression "cooby George" cuz it > was cool back then. I still have no idea at all what it meant. But having godparents isn't comparable to using "cool" expressions. The word "godparents" has God in it and relates to the ceremony of baptism (or possibly some similar rite in other religions). If the WW has kept the secular elements of Christmas (Father Christmas, aka Santa Claus) and Easter candy but discarded the religious elements (rather like American department stores), wouldn't they change the term "godparent" to something else? Notice that they haven't gone politically correct by bringing in Hanukkah and Kwanzaa or wishing each other "happy holidays." It looks to me as if the WW reflects Muggle Britain in, say, the 1970s. I can't tell whether the Christian elements are wholly secularized or whether witches and wizards marry in church (or a synagogue, if they're Anthony Goldstein's parents) and baptize their children. Maybe JKR is trying to show that her WW has nothing to do with Wicca and is really not all that different from the mainstream Muggle world (despite outmoded instititions such as slavery, which existed along with Christianity for hundreds of years). Carol From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Fri Jan 9 23:43:59 2004 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (Tracy Hunt) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:43:59 -0000 Subject: Goat FILKs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88340 Haggridd, CMC, Gail, Ginger and Constance... I tried...really, I tried... You set the bar so high (or should that be low?)... This one came to me but then I suffered one of my (all too common) brain fades and couldn't finish...anyone care to take up the torch? Or you all goat-ed out? Abbie No! The Goats No More! to the tune of Michael, Row the Boat Ashore Brother, ALBUS pleads with ABERFORTH (whom he fondly refers to as Abbie) to end his morally questionable relations with the herd. ALBUS: Abbie No! The Goats No More! Hallelujah. Abbie No! The Goats No More! Hallelujah. I know you like their little tails. Hallelujah. I know you like their little tails. Hallelujah........ Tcy (going back to lurking with *her* tail between her legs) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:48:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:48:04 -0000 Subject: Why give the diary to Ginny? Was: Why put the entrance to the CoS in a girls' ba Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88341 Rai-chan wrote: > I don't think Salazar Slytherin intentionally put the CoS in a girl's bathroom. As I remembered from the book, Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago...so probably it was not a bathroom before. The builders probably couldn't open the door that led to the CoS so they'd just laid the foundation over it. > > As for the girl theory, it was Lucius Malfoy who picked Ginny Weasley as Riddle's victim maybe because Ginny's still a freshman and was the most vulnerable (or she's the nearest when HP's group and Lucius and Draco Malfoy met at the Diagon Alley). I think Lucius chose Ginny not just because she was the youngest and presumably the most naive, but because a little girl is more likely than a boy to confide in a diary. He may even have been astute enough to realize that the boys had each other to share experiences with, but Ginny as the lone girl in the family would have been somewhat left out. Anyway, Lucius is an astute man and I think he chose the person most likely to actually use the diary (and be ensnared by it). Sorry if that sounds sexist, but as someone else noted recently, stereotypes are based on fact. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 23:56:36 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:56:36 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as heirs of Slytherin? Was: Why put the entrance to the Cos in a girls' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88342 Rai-chan wrote: > The Weasley might be a descendant of Slytherin. Not direct but a distant descendant because the Weasley's are purebloods, right? Carol: They can't be heirs of Slytherin because Tom Riddle was the last descendant (through his muggle-born mother). Also, as you say, the Weasleys are purebloods. If they were descended from Salazar Slytherin through another branch of the Slytherin family that didn't intermarry with Muggles, that descent would be reflected in their genealogical records and known to all the pureblood families. Dumbledore would know it as well. Since he doesn't have any such information, we can safely assume that Voldemort is the last of the Slytherin line. Carol From mochajava13 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 00:02:05 2004 From: mochajava13 at yahoo.com (mochajava13) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:02:05 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88343 sleepingdragonzz: I was looking through my copy of the 5th book, and I'm wondering if Aunt Petunia may have been invited to attend Hogwarts with Lily, but refused. She does seem to know a great deal about the magical world, even though she would rather pretend that it didn't exist. Wouldn't it be interesting if Aunt Petunia had some magical powers that she has tried to "squash" out through the years? As we all know, you can't "squash" out the magical power of someone, even though Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia had tried to do so with Harry. Anyone have any thoughts?? Sarah responds: Completely agree with you on this idea. Aunt Petunia knows too much about the magical world; she knows about the dementors and knows about what the wizarding world was like when Voldemort was powerful. And she is just too obsessed with being "normal". It's as if she's trying to prove to herself that she's normal. There's so many little things in the books that point towards this. In book 1, Vernon thinks that he can ignore the letters that Harry gets from Hogwarts and the letters will just disappear. Petunia doesn't agree, but Vernon ignores her. Maybe she knows this from experience? Plus, if Petunia got a Hogwarts letter, it would have been when Voldemort was powerful, and out to kill muggle borns. Petunia thinks that Lily is a freak, and blames Lily for Lily's death. (In book 1, Petunia say Lily went and got herself blown up.) Maybe Petunia thinks Lily is a freak not only because Lily's a witch, but also because Lily voluntarily joined a world where people like them (muggle borns) were targeted for death by an evil wizard and his henchmen? Also, doesn't it say somewhere in book 5 that if a wizard's powers aren't used, they wither away? (I think it was in Umbridge's speech at the beginning of the year...) From kcawte at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 10 08:19:04 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:19:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) References: Message-ID: <000d01c3d752$68f73f30$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88344 Carol > > But having godparents isn't comparable to using "cool" expressions. > The word "godparents" has God in it and relates to the ceremony of > baptism (or possibly some similar rite in other religions). If the WW > has kept the secular elements of Christmas (Father Christmas, aka > Santa Claus) and Easter candy but discarded the religious elements > (rather like American department stores), wouldn't they change the > term "godparent" to something else? K My take on it is that Lily would have been christened in a Church and therefore likely have Godarents - most of my contemporaries (except those of Muslim, Jewish etc families) were, even if their families only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals. (I'm 4 years older than Harry would be btw). She would then pass the tradition down to her son, even if she didn't expect him to grow up being particularly religious. In Lily's age group I think the majority of English people would list their religion as CofE, get married in a church, have their children christened etc - even if a large chunk of them never pray, don't read the bible and rarely set foot inside a church. While it is a religious ceremony - I think for many, many people it's more of a tradition now than an actual religious event. It's just something you do when a child is born. I suspect that since a large minority at least of children in the wizarding world seem to have one or more muggle parents that the tradition could well have been adopted in the same way as Christmas - and asfor changing the name, why bother? They haven't changed the name of *Christ*mas. K From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 00:28:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:28:08 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: <3CF100D0-4298-11D8-9B26-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pen Robinson wrote: Pen: > In omitting any reference to the Christian roots of these festivals, > JKR is (a) avoiding the issue of whether or not wizards have religious > beliefs, and what these might be; and, more importantly (b) mirroring > the normal behaviour of British society. While it is true that there > are some efforts made to note the religious aspects of these occasions > (Christmas carols on Radio 4, that kind of thing), and there are some > people who have sincere regard for the Christian meaning of these > occasions, it seems that most of British society regards them as an > opportunity not to have to go to work, to acquire expensive consumer > goods, and to eat and drink too much. Geoff: Bear in mind, however, that Hogwarts has been around about 1000 years and came into being at a time when Christmas was taken a good deal more seriously than being the celebration of materialism that many people have allowed it to become today. Steve has commented on the fact that many people will claim to be Christian, some not even going to church which to me is a curious paradox although there is also the position of churchgoers who seem to attend simply because they were brought up to go. The now-retired Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, was being interviewed on TV a few years ago and to one question put by the newscaster replied, "Ah, you're confusing Churchianity with Christianity". I am a Christian. I claim to have faith but I do not claim to be religious because I believe the two are not identical. I think it was also Steve who remarked about Christmas having grown out of other celebrations. It should be remembered that in the very, very early days of the Church, the only way in which many believers could celebrate - especially if they were slaves -was to hold their feasts etc. at the same time as the main Roman festivals; the Saturnalia for example fell in mid-winter so that became the date for one festival. Turning to JKR, there are other instances of other Christian writers who have not created a world which is specifically Christian in their books but it is obvious where they are coming from; Tolkien is a very notable case, as is C.S.Lewis although "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" leans heavily on allegory. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 00:29:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:29:21 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88346 Laurence wrote: > I have nothing against stay at home Mum, but to free completely JKR > from the accusation of "inconscient sexism", that I probably should > call "stereotypical sexism", I would like for Harry to meet the > husband of Tonks and her children (Yes I know she's too young, but > you get my meaning). My point of view is that the space given for > women in JKR's world is not better, and I would even say a little > bit worse for what we have seen, than a European (or American) > western country that I personally consider sexist. > Carol: There may be elements of sexism in the WW, but that doesn't make JKR herself an "inconscient" (unconscious?) sexist. It only means that the WW is flawed by modern politically correct standards. These people have House Elves as slaves, some of whom are badly mistreated. Their world is not our world, despite certain familiar elements such as the conventions of English boarding schools). They have no knowledge of (and possibly no use for) modern science. (I wonder if they even know or care that most diseases are spread by bacteria or viruses.) Their values are not necessarily her values any more than their lack of scientific knowledge means that she is equally unaware of scientific discoveries. She openly condemns some of their values, such as prejudice against werewolves and brutality toward House Elves, not to mention the Slytherin bias against Muggle-borns. If she wrote a novel about the 1950s, a time when women were much more restricted than they are today, would she be "an inconscient sexist" for creating characters who reflected the values of that time? Surely not. Carol From hermione978 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 21:58:59 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:58:59 -0000 Subject: Perseus Evans theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88347 Regina S: > Perhaps Perseus Evans was his birth name but for most of his life, > including his school years, he has been Snape. Remember, the > mythological Perseus was sent away as a baby to try to thwart the > prophecy that he'd kill his grandfather (it didn't work; he killed > him accidentally years later). If Perseus Evans was sent away as a > baby, it's possible that his new, anagram-ed name was given at that > time. Maybe he's the only one who knows he's Lily's brother or half- > brother or whatever. Except for Dumbledore, he knows everything. Im not sure about this whole name theory. There is'nt evidence in the book that i have found to really support this very well. I would think if Harry and Severus Snape were related in some way or had a connection other than Order of the Phoenix that it would have been brought up before then or when Harry discovers the order exists. I am just not completely sure that I can buy this, no matter how original a thought this is. :0) Hermione978 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 00:42:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:42:17 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88348 "severelysigune" wrote: > This is possibly a stupid question, but is there an exact definition > of a Squib? I mean, are Squibs entirely devoid of magic (as in: the > perfect opposite of a Muggle-born wizard), or do they possess some, > but not enough to be a 'full' wizard/witch? And do Squibs have wands? The first lesson in the Kwikspell course > is one on how to hold your wand, which implies you need to have one > in the first place. If 'the wand chooses the wizard', can you just go > into a shop and buy one, even if you are a Squib? I think that Mr. Ollivander might be unwilling to sell a wand to Filch if he dared to walk into that shop (Mr. O. has an uncanny ability to size up his customers and would probably know a Squib when he saw one). Granted, he sold a wand to "little" Hagrid, but Hagrid must have come to the shop accompanied by his wizard father and must have been listed in the book that records the birth of magical children or he wouldn't have received a letter from Hogwarts. Filch probably didn't have any such letter, and Mr. O. would know it. However, if he couldn't buy a wand from Ollivander, he could easily buy one from a used wand shop in Knockturn Alley, whose owners wouldn't have any such scruples. Carol, who thinks that Squibs have some latent magic in them because they can see things that Muggles can't From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 22:30:58 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:30:58 -0000 Subject: HP, inconscient sexim from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88349 Laurence: > Lena F. suggests that the HP books can be considered quite sexist, > maybe not so much in the portraying of the characters themselves > (quoi que... see Molly Weasley) but above all from a plot driven > point ie very often it is women's incompetence which is to blame for > the advance of the villains and she gives a lot of example of this > concept, between Bertha Jorkins (pictured totally incompetent, and > who's a puppet in Voldemort hand), Ginny Weasley too naive to > recognize Voldemort in the diary, or the mother of Crouch who let an > assassine loose. > (go read her essay to understand better what I'm trying resume) I have questions on all of these topics. Does Molly not seem like a typical mother. Every mother-aunt-grandmother-etc. that I know or have ever known seems to share these general charactaristics. My own mother in particular, shares these charactaristics. She is rather loudspoken, bossy, caring, everything she exhibits. Now this about Bertha Jorkins seems logical. Not all women share this quality at all, but would this role be fulfilled by a male character? I am not being sexist at all here, but in nearly all instances of books, television, movies, life; a little girl will be curious/gossip/etc. just as Bertha does. I do not thing any person expected Tom Riddle to be LV, I would have not expected LV to be Tom had I been in Ginny's situation. Seeing how much people feared LV's return, it would have been very difficult for them to will themselves into a connection between Tom and LV. I do not see any sexism in these charactars, only a typical girl, mother, or person. > P.S. By the way, I'll introduced myself: 24-y-belgian girl, first > language French (English 3rd, it explains bad grammar), electrical > engineer, part of "Women in Sciences"(WiSe...), HP fan, HG/SS > shipper. I am an 18 year old male from the Uniten States, first language of English, and a second language of Spanish. I am currently attending UC for Arhcitecture. Perhaps American women are different then European women. I am not being hostile at all. I just can not match the apparent role of women you presented as sexism. There are many prominant witches in HP. Andrew From suzchiles at msn.com Sat Jan 10 00:43:20 2004 From: suzchiles at msn.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:43:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88350 JustCarol says: > But having godparents isn't comparable to using "cool" expressions. > The word "godparents" has God in it and relates to the ceremony of > baptism (or possibly some similar rite in other religions). If the WW > has kept the secular elements of Christmas (Father Christmas, aka > Santa Claus) and Easter candy but discarded the religious elements > (rather like American department stores), wouldn't they change the > term "godparent" to something else? I know of many, many situations of persons who are godparents where there are no religious beliefs for either the child's family nor that of the godparent. In fact, I myself, an atheist, am a godparent. The use of the word may not be according to the beliefs of the church, but many people use this term with absolutely no religious overtones whatsoever. Suzanne From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 00:46:06 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:46:06 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: Berit: > Well, I have canon facts that suggests the bathroom probably has not > been remodelled... Quote: "'That tap's never worked', said Myrtle > brightly, as he [Harry] tried to turn it.'" (CoS p. 222 UK Ed). > > It's kind of implied the reason that tap has never worked is because > it has a different use than the usual one; it's the key to the secret > chamber, not an ordinary tap where water pours out if you turn it. Geoff: Myrtle knew that the tap has never worked in her time in the place, i.e from perhaps 1940 onwards. That tap could not be an original piece of Hogwarts plumbing because taps weren't around a thousand years ago. I recently visited the old underground conduits in Exeter which were built to bring water into the cathedral and the city about 600 years ago and although they were an excellent piece of engineering for their time, they were stone lined and there was no piping in the sense that we would expect today. The interesting question becomes whether there has been an heir of Slytherin at Hogwarts prior to Tom Riddle who was there at a time when a piped water system was installed. From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Fri Jan 9 23:44:54 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:44:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perseus Evans theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88352 >Carol writes: BTW, there isn't a shred of evidence that >Snape ever had any other name. The Perseus Evans anagram is not >canonical, like Tom Marvolo Riddle/I am Lord Voldemort. It's a fan >"discovery" and probably pure coincidence. Actually, I agree with you there, Carol. The vast majority of fan speculation on the books usually does come to no fruition in the actual books. And the bits that do turn out to be true often have a very different spin on them than anyone out in fandom ever guessed at before the book's publication. However, this discussion string was started off by someone asking what the Perseus Evans theory was -- and so I answered to the best of my ability based on what I've read on various Internet posting lists and my own speculations. Whether there's anything to the theory or not will be revealed when we read books 6 and 7 and Harry Potter's saga comes to an end. However, that doesn't stop readers from passing the time prior to those publication dates by speculating on what might be coming. And this theory is one of the more interesting ones to me, personally. But I'm perfectly happy to state up front that it could very well be wrong. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 01:03:28 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:03:28 -0000 Subject: genealogy of Harry Potter: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermione978" wrote: Hermione978: > Later in the book, towards the end, Harry learns about his life > prophecy. He learns that the only one who can touch the prophecy is > the person whom it is about. You will remember when it was taken at > the Dept. of Mysteries that NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM picked it up. The > prophecy was marked "Harry Potter,?" Geoff: I think the question of who can touch the prophecy refers to the /initial/ picking up and not later. Voldemort has been thwarted because he tried to get it via someone else; this failed because of the protection so he lured Harry to the MoM for that purpose. He could have got it himself but this would have confirmed that he had returned. In the Department of Mysteries, Malfoy demands that Harry give it to him whe he first apparates into the building, Bellatrix tries to use an Accio command which Harry blocks with a Protection (Protego) and he is about to give it to Malfoy when the OOTP members burst in. From hannahwonder at aol.com Sat Jan 10 01:04:51 2004 From: hannahwonder at aol.com (hannahwonder at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:04:51 EST Subject: Predictions on the something small Message-ID: <53.2e053d0.2d30a9b3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88354 rtb333 said: I know that it was discussed earlier on, but I was wonder if anyone had any insights into what the Small thing in COS that will be big in Book 6 is. (snip of spy/hand of glory bit) and now my thoughts (Hannah): I think if there is any thing from CoS (or the first three books in general) that will become very important in later books, it is definitely the fact that Harry is a Parselmouth. I remember when the second book came out and, upon reading it, feeling that this was going to be a /big deal/ for him. Certainly the students' reaction after the Dueling Club incident with Justin F-F (sorry, I'm away from my books at the moment) and even Dumbledore's explanation make it seem like an unusual and important trait. But Harry has yet to use it, in his meetings with Voldemort, or in everyday life. This strikes me as very odd. It's something that could possibly be very useful for him; certainly something that makes him unique that I expected would get more focus. I see three possible reasons for JKR to leave Parseltongue out of Harry's life for the last 3 books (and I'd love to hear any more ideas if they're out there): 1. Making Harry a Parselmouth was a minor decision in JKR's opinion, done early in the series merely to create a plot twist and which gained overblown importance in my 12 year old mind. (I admit, I'm hoping this one isn't it.) 2. JKR left Harry's being a Parselmouth out of the next three books because she felt Harry would also try to ignore it. He might not consider it a gift, or something possibly useful to him, because it came from his connection with Voldemort. The negative situation around which he received the ability to be a Parselmouth could block him from considering all its possible uses. 3. JKR has left out the Parselmouth hoping all her readers will forget so she can bring it back for a final battle against Voldemort in which Harry somehow saves the Wizarding World by speaking to a snake! I do feel that reason 2 could be a little bit excessive, or reading too much into it. And reason 3 seems like it has only as much clout as any other final battle theory. So, unfortunately, I recognize that reason 1 is probably the most likely. But who knows? Hannah From kcawte at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 10 09:18:11 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:18:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: genealogy of Harry Potter: References: Message-ID: <000b01c3d75a$ab354790$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88355 > Geoff: > I think the question of who can touch the prophecy refers to > the /initial/ picking up and not later. Voldemort has been thwarted > because he tried to get it via someone else; this failed because of > the protection so he lured Harry to the MoM for that purpose. He > could have got it himself but this would have confirmed that he had > returned. > K You know thinking about that - Voldemort's best plan would have been to get into the Ministry without anyone seeing him (which let's face it doesn't seem like the hardest task in the world), get the prophesy and get out. It can only be touched by Voldemort and Harry, but Fudge is absolutely *desperate* to believe Voldemort isn't back and equally to discredit Harry who says that he is - he'd have turned himself inside out to find a way to make it look like Harry stole it. Thus voldemort would have hade the prophesy and the bane of his existence would have been in even more trouble with the Ministry - perfect. Unfortunately for Voldemort he never does things the simple way :) K From dudemom_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 02:10:57 2004 From: dudemom_2000 at yahoo.com (dudemom_2000) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:10:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" > wrote: > > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > > > Abagail's Discussion Questions: > > > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's statement shed a new light on him? meriaugust said: > I would assume that muggle baiting is the reason for many things > that muggles take for granted as everyday experiences and certain > wizards use to get their jollies off (from the shrinking door keys > to the plumbing incidents). If he is condescending to them, I think that it is only because he appreciates that their ignorance of the magical world makes his job just a little easier. Dudemom_2000 says: Arthur is actually unaware he is a bit patronizing towards muggles. It is sort of like saying, "Some of my best friends are....." His attitude isn't unusual. Wizards know they have an edge on the muggles and he inadvertently reveals this with his "Bless them!" Arthur, IMHO, really likes muggles and he is fully aware some of his society's attitude toward muggles. >Snip< > > > 3. Lucius greets Harry as 'Patronus Potter'. Later in the book > > Bellatrix refers to Sirius as 'Animagus Black'. In the latter > case, a person is referred to by the magical ability that distinguishes him - is this also true for Harry? We know that his ability to conjure a corporeal Patronus is unusual in a boy so young, but does this ability - and the moniker - mark Harry as a protective figure (after all, in conjuring the Patronus, he was also > > protecting his helpless cousin)? Is it significant that the only two people we've met who've used this fashion of referring to > > people are Death Eaters? meriaugust said: I think that "patronus Potter" was just a term of condescension and > dislike, and that "animagus Black" was used to not only denote the > person Bellatrix was fighting, but also to distance herself from her cousin. Dudemom_2000 says: I agree that 'Patronus Potter' is a condenscending term as is 'Animagus Black'. It is an attempt to denigrate both of them but in fact (especially in Harry's case)it backfires because it is actually a BIG compliment because most children his age can't do what he can do! I find the comment to be a rather toothless attempt to rile them. > > > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > > underpinnings? >meriagust said: > The Weasleys are the prototypical "poor but happy" family, or at > least they were until the begining of OotP. The resentment on > Arthur's part, I think, has to do with the fact that Malfoy can buy his way into the good graces of the minister, while Arthur and the others who are on the side of truth must struggle to get themselves heard. The Weasley's financial problems are not uncommon in the muggle world, and are a totally understandable source of stress for anyone. Arthur, having just seen his almost like a son Harry nearly get convicted by the Wizengamot for underage magic and confronted by his known rival, is understandaby stressed. And Ron's embarassment over his family's financail situation is also understandable: no one wants to be the poor kid at school who can't afford the latest shoes or cell phone or broomstick as the case may be. > Dudemom_2000 says: I think Arthur has a reasonable jealousy of Malfoy's ability to "grease" his way to what he wants but Arthur also knows he has taken the "high road" and all that it entails. I think he and Molly deeply feel the distress their children feel at not having anything better than used or hand me downs. However, I do think that is going to be a moot point shortly since the twins are on the fast track to success! > > 5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to > > believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could > > Dumbledore know this for sure? > meriaugust said: > I think that Fudge's reaction is totally believable from what we saw at the end of GoF, before anyone had a chance to Imperio him (or > didn't they?). DD understands that Fudge will resist the knowledge > of LV's return, and I think that he acted as acordingly as his > character could, no Imperio about it. > Dudemom_2000 says: I really don't think Fudge is under the Imperius Curse. Everyone else has behaved oddly and Fudge has pretty much stayed true to the "Petty Bureaucrat" mold. Fudge is out for the power but is blind to the consequences of what he is doing (Dumbledore even reminds him of that when he tells him he can do something or be known as the minister who did nothing). >Snip> > > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at > > this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the > > position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe > > that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will > > Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this > > acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as > > a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who > > is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? >meriaugust replied: > I think that this is totally in character for Hermione, especially > in the later examples when she tries to explain Cho and Ginny to > Harry and Ron. She is their female sounding board, anyway, and her > emotional maturity is being stressed here. I think, though, that > Harry will develop his own emotional instincts, and by the end of > OotP he allready has: when he feels sorrry for Luna and offers to > help her look for her posessions. Harry will grow up eventually. We just need to give him time to prosess. (Ron "insensitive wart" > Weasley, on the other hand, may need to be whipped into shape by > Hermione.) > Dudemom_2000 says: Hermione simply continues to be the information supplier in this case, just on an emotional level. Girls are traditionally more mature at this age and since she is comfortable with Harry she speaks her mind. She is also trying to help Harry out by explaining about girls. Hermione seems to regard Ron as a lost cause because he is being purposely dense. She seems exasperated with both when they just don't get it, but Harry seems to slowly be catching on. I think Hermione will continue to be the information supplier but still on many levels, whether it is emotional or otherwise. She is non intuitive especially where the House Elves are concerned but I think that is purposeful on JKR's part. I think they and Hermione's reactions in the later books will suprise us immensely! > > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that > > she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? meriaugust said: > She must know who he is by now, just as she knows who Sirius and > Lupin are, but there is no denying that Ron DID like having Scabbers as a pet, no matter what he said about him. Scabbers and Wormtail seem to often be refered to as seperate characters, and if I had my books with me I would look up some cannon on that (anyone help me there?). > Dudemom_2000 says: I think that Mrs. Weasley knew Ron was fond of Scabbers and is offering him something she thinks will please him. It is also one of the cheaper things she can get and easily afford. I think she simply wants to please Ron and keep it easy on her budget. > > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George > ('that's everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his > achievement. Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the > chapter affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's > overreacting to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? > meriaugust said: > Mrs. Weasley has seven kids, remember, and it is not uncommon for > people with lots of kids to sometimes forget a few of them. She does the same thing with Ron all the time when she gives him cornbeef sandwitches and maroon sweaters, neither of which he likes. (I know that, as one of four kids, I was forever called by the names of either my sister or one of my female cousins or my childhood > friends, and to try to get my name out of my grandmother, who has > sixteen grandchildren, is near impossible). And I don't think that > she was bribing Ron at all. She didn't seem to have had a bargain > with him (get made a prefect and we'll buy you a broom), it seems to be more of a reward, like Percy's owl. > Dudemom_2000 says: I definitely think Mrs. Weasley has written off Fred and George for any sort of traditional career by now. They have shown every indication that they are just not bureaucrat material! I do think she is trying to relive Percy's success in Ron and any success in her children makes her very happy. She is very busy and in some ways doesn't know her children (i.e. the corned beef sandwich) but she is very concerned with their successes and their futures and I think that is why she behaves the way she does. I wouldn't say she is recreating Percy, she just has the same high hopes for Ron of success. > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > > choice? > meriaugust said: > I think that Ron was a good choice. He gets decent marks, plays > passable Quidditch, and he has good leadership skills that have > manifested themselves in the chess match in SS. I think that the > choice of Ron for prefect was because he was not totally > exceptional. I always found it easier to take direction from someone who was an equal in certain ways, and not superior. Dudemom_2000 says: I am not so sure that Ron was the best choice but Ron does have potential and I think this is Dumbledore's way of developing his talents. Ron is intimidated by the twins but he doesn't really seem to have difficulty doing the job otherwise. His cracks about the first years are certainly not appropriate but considering he is a younger brother, he is getting a taste of what his older brother must think of him! Another Gryffindore boy might have been a better choice but Ron and his certain development is more interesting! > > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? > meriaugust said: > Ron is jealous (IMHO) of the twins' popularity. He wants to b e like them, and I think, would rather not be an authority figure. But I don't see the twins' "slightly malicious needling" as anything more than the actions of brothers poking fun at their younger sibling. > Dudemom_2000 says: I think the twins are motiviated on both levels. They resent the attention of Mrs. Weasley (but only a bit) and the Prefect badge but it seems to be their tradition to harass whomever gets that badge in the family. Ron is wistful only because he wishes he were like the twins but he knows in his heart he is different and he spends most of OoP finding out who HE is (especially after the twins leave). > > 12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's > badge, and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of > emotional maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of that kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly being in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during OOP? > meriaugust said: > Harry is, after all is said and done, a fifteen year old boy. To > expect him to be totally emotionally mature at this age, and in his situation, is, IMHO, not realistic. With all that he has been > through, it is easy to see how hos anger and sadness could easily > temporarily cloud his emotional development. That Harry could find > it in himself twice that year to look beyond himself and think of > Ron and Luna before himself is something to be proud of. As I said > before, Harry will grow up eventually, and it is these imperfections in his character that make him such an interesting hero. Dudemom_2000 says: I definitely agree that Harry is all of a fifteen year old boy. He is inconsistant and at the whims of his emotions. He also has a lot on his plate so to speak so he really doesn't have the wherewithal to have introspection and maturity at points. He does find he can be happy for Ron because he knows that Ron is in his shadow and that it bothers Ron and I think that the GoF rift played heavily into this. Harry sees that it would make Ron happy for Harry to show his pleasure at Ron's success. Harry feels sorry for Luna because on some levels he identifies with her. She is different and he finds he learns from her since she seems to be able to deal with her situations. > >Snip> > > > 16. Does Mrs. Weasley's Boggart really conjure the image of both > > twins dead together? What does this tell us about her perception of the twins? What does it tell us about JKR's? > I think that she (and maybe to some extent the readers) see the > twins as a single entity, one person divided up between to bodies. meriaugust said: > Whether this is common for twins or not I don't know, but it does > strike me as strange that the two of them don't seem to have any > seperate interests. > Dudemom_2000 I do think Mrs. Weasley and we are led to believe that the twins are "one entity" yet when in the Quiddich match fight George manages to get at Malfoy with Harry. At that point the twins and separated for the first time. The twin's strength is in their unity, which is how they have gotten away with so much over the years. >Snip> > Meri submits her answers for discussion. Dudemom_2000 *****\(@@)/***** From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 03:54:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:57 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" > wrote: > > > Berit: > > > Well, I have canon facts that suggests the bathroom probably has > not > > been remodelled... Quote: "'That tap's never worked', said Myrtle > > brightly, as he [Harry] tried to turn it.'" (CoS p. 222 UK Ed). > > > > It's kind of implied the reason that tap has never worked is > because > > it has a different use than the usual one; it's the key to the > secret > > chamber, not an ordinary tap where water pours out if you turn it. > > Geoff: > Myrtle knew that the tap has never worked in her time in the place, > i.e from perhaps 1940 onwards. > > That tap could not be an original piece of Hogwarts plumbing because > taps weren't around a thousand years ago. I recently visited the old > underground conduits in Exeter which were built to bring water into > the cathedral and the city about 600 years ago and although they were > an excellent piece of engineering for their time, they were stone > lined and there was no piping in the sense that we would expect > today. The interesting question becomes whether there has been an > heir of Slytherin at Hogwarts prior to Tom Riddle who was there at a > time when a piped water system was installed. Or possibly Tom himself etched the snake on the tap when he first discovered the entrance as a way of identifying the entrance for the person who discovered his diary. Or he might even have been showing off--writing "the Heir of Slytherin is here" in secret code. Whatever his motive, I think he's the person most likely to have etched the snake on the tap. (I entirely agree with the rest of your argument, especially Myrtle's use of "never" to mean "never in my time at Hogwarts." She's still mentally a little girl of about twelve who would have little knowledge of or interest in Hogwarts' thousand-year history.) Carol Carol From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 05:55:25 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:55:25 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88358 Sarah said about the idea that Petunia is a witch who declined to go to Hogwarts: > Completely agree with you on this idea. Aunt Petunia knows too much about the magical world; she knows about the dementors and knows about what the wizarding world was like when Voldemort was powerful. And she is just too obsessed with being "normal". It's as if she's trying to prove to herself that she's normal.< KathyK responds: IMO, it's much more likely that Petunia knows about the WW from her sister, Lily. You know, the one who went to Hogwarts, the one whose parents were so proud of having a witch. I'm betting Lily's experiences with the meeting of the muggle and magical worlds was much more positive than Harry's. Her parents probably asked her about her studies, and she was probably very excited to talk about all the things she learned. Perhaps the Evans family took a trip to Diagon Alley, like we see the Grangers doing in CoS. Very unlike the Dursleys don't-ask-questions-don't-talk-about-you-know-what policy. I also think Petunia's learned about LV and dementors from Lily as well. If we take Petunia at face value when she lets slip she knows a thing or two about the WW--and I tend to think she was lying about her source, but not about the fact that she herself has nothing to do with the WW--she heard "that boy" telling "her" about it. While not explicitly stated, my belief is Petunia is referring to Lily and James. Which means Lily has brought her magical life in some way into her muggle one, exposing her family and Petunia to a variety of things. Petunia overheard them talking about dementors. Not hard to believe at all given Petunia's nosy nature. The only part of this story she concocts that seems suspect to me is where she remembers dementors and Azkaban from all those years ago. Either that was one unforgettable conversation, or she's had more contact than we know of. I tend to think she's heard a thing or two over the years. And I'm fond of the theory she's been reading Harry's discarded _Daily Prophet_ myself. Now there are a good many reasons for Lily (or James) to have at some point mentioned Lord Voldemort. I don't think we need Petunia to be a witch or a part of the WW to be terrified of this wizard, either in the present or in the past. Some of the reasons for Lily to mention and for Petunia to be afraid could be LV causing some sort of harm to the Evans family beyond his killing Lily, Lily shares news with her family who is actually interested in her life, or Lily not wanting to worry her family says nothing of LV, but nosy Petunia overhears too much of a conversation between Lily and James, or reads Lily's own newspapers or correspondence. The possibilities are endless without adding Petunia, the witch who rejected magic. Sarah wrote: >There's so many little things in the books that point towards this. In book 1, Vernon thinks that he can ignore the letters that Harry gets from Hogwarts and the letters will just disappear. Petunia doesn't agree, but Vernon ignores her. Maybe she knows this from experience?< KathyK: What do you mean? That she got a Hogwarts letter, ignored it, and was subsequently flooded with letters? Why reject something so new that she's had no prior exposure to? Maybe only Lily got a letter, the Evans thought it was a hoax, threw the letter away, only to discover they were incorrect. Unless you're arguing they had preexisting knowledge of the WW? I think it's just that Petunia knows enough about the WW and *Dumbledore* to know that trying to stop Harry's letters is useless. Sarah: >Plus, if Petunia got a Hogwarts letter, it would have been when Voldemort was powerful, and out to kill muggle borns. Petunia thinks that Lily is a freak, and blames Lily for Lily's death. (In book 1, Petunia say Lily went and got herself blown up.) Maybe Petunia thinks Lily is a freak not only because Lily's a witch, but also because Lily voluntarily joined a world where people like them (muggle borns) were targeted for death by an evil wizard and his henchmen?< KathyK: I suppose it's possible this is one of the reasons Petunia thinks Lily is a freak. However, I do need to point out that during LV's first reign, muggles died in addition to muggle borns (and anyone else that stood in Voldemort's way). No one was safe so long as he was powerful. Petunia may have thought it was freakish (and foolish) to go off and actively work against him, but if she knew enough about what was going on to say that she'd have to know that she and every other muggle was in danger of becoming a potential victim of the Death Eaters. I don't know if she's *that* knowledgeable...after all book 1 states that Petunia and Lily have not seen each other in years. Sarah: > Also, doesn't it say somewhere in book 5 that if a wizard's powers aren't used, they wither away? (I think it was in Umbridge's speech at the beginning of the year...)< KathyK: Not exactly. What she says is: "The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of vital importance. The rare gifts with which you were born may come to nothing if not nurtured and honed by careful instruction. The ancient skills unique to the Wizarding community must be passed down through the generations lest we lose them forever. The treasure trove of magical knowledge amassed by our ancestors must be guarded, replenished, and polished by those who have been called to the noble profession of teaching." OoP, Chapter 11, US ed. 212. If I thought on it for long, I could write a better response than the one I'm about to give. But I'm tired, so this is what I've got for now to illustrate the difference between what you said and what Umbridge says. Umbridge is talking about the importance of education both to the individual and to society. She's not saying, if you don't use it you lose it. Well, yes she is, but on a grander scale than one person not doing magic and therefore losing the ability to do magic. Take Hagrid for example. For many, many years he was not allowed to do magic--well he did do some we know. But did this ban diminish or remove his magicalness? No, it just means he's not trained the same way the average witch/wizard is. KathyK, who thinks Petunia the muggle has enough going on without adding magic of her own into the mix From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 07:53:26 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:53:26 -0000 Subject: genealogy of Harry Potter: In-Reply-To: <000b01c3d75a$ab354790$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" wrote: K: > > You know thinking about that - Voldemort's best plan would have been to get > into the Ministry without anyone seeing him (which let's face it doesn't > seem like the hardest task in the world), get the prophesy and get out. It > can only be touched by Voldemort and Harry, but Fudge is absolutely > *desperate* to believe Voldemort isn't back and equally to discredit Harry > who says that he is - he'd have turned himself inside out to find a way to > make it look like Harry stole it. Thus voldemort would have hade the > prophesy and the bane of his existence would have been in even more trouble > with the Ministry - perfect. > > Unfortunately for Voldemort he never does things the simple way :) > Geoff: That was the point behind my comment that Voldemort was thwarted when he tried to get the prophecy via someone else - was it Bode who finished up in St.Mungo's because of that? (I can't pin it down in OOTP at this time in the morning!). He was also thwarted in the Ministry when he hoped to get Harry to hand it over and ude to the failure of the Death Eaters to really take the toung people seriously, it agve time for the adult OOTP members to get there and of course his Lordship had to intervene himself and managed to mess up on that one too. Passing thought - Hitler was also quite good at getting in the way of his underlings and making their best laid plans a bit pear-shaped wasn't he? Perhaps it is a failing of megalomaniacs.... From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 08:02:45 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:02:45 -0000 Subject: FILK: A Goat is a Goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" wrote: > > Haggrid First Wrote: > > > Aberforth's Delight > > > > Then CMC Submitted: > > > The Love Goat > > > > Then Haggrid Posted: > > >> Aberforth's Afternoon Delight > > > Then Gail added: > > Charms on a Goat > > This will not do. I cannot let this challenge go unmet! I take my > place with the sickies and present (to the theme of that old TV > sitcom, Mr. Ed) > > A Goat is a Goat > ~ Constance Vigilance What you wrote 'bout the goat has my vote! Haggridd From jakejensen at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 08:12:02 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:12:02 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kneasy wrote: > Fans may offer counter arguments, but it doesn't seem that startling > revelations of what someone is are multi-volume threads. The only > arguable instance is Scabbers (introduced in book 1 and revealed in > book 3), but for the first two books he was a minor cast member who > blossomed(!) in book 3. To put it crudely, he was 'a nothing' that > became 'a something'. He may yet become a 'something else' but that > has already been hinted at with his debt to Harry. >. This is an insightful observation. True, most significant character transformations occur over the course of a single text. However, I think it is safe to say that significant character revelations are approaching for Lily Evans, one of the Dursleys (probably Pet.), one of the OoTP (probably turn out to be a counterspy), Neville (or one of the Longbottoms), and Snape (just to name a few). These character transformations will be appear at the end of the series, even though JKR has been developing them for thousands of pages. So, for example, if all of a sudden Petunia is revealed to be a squib who lived actively in the WW for most of her early years it would be a lengthy revelation (started in book one). So, given that such transformations/revelations are likely for at least some of the main characters, I think we should consider them a definite possibility. Kneasy wrote: > As to the evidence produced by Pippin, filoroll and others, all I can > say is that, *IMO*, all of it can be explained by alternative > interpretations. Moreover, and I may be mistaken here, the only > reason that the adherents of the Snape!Vampire theory seem to > have is a desire to see a vampire in the story somewhere and Snape > is the one elected. Now if someone can offer cogent reasons *why* > Snape needs to be a vampire, I'll be more than happy to listen (and > probably to dissent, but that's beside the point). > > Add to this the evidence countering the Snape!Vampire hypothesis > (that he doesn't show the behavioural characteristics associated with > the breed), and I hope you will understand my deep scepticism. Speaking for myself, my belief in the Snape!Vampire theory does not stem from a desire to see a vampire in the story somewhere. My belief was driven by the canon. What originally sparked my curiosity was the exchange between Lupin and Snape in PoA. Here it is in summary: 1. Snape is especially bothered by Lupin being DADA (as evidenced by his constant nagging on DD about it). Note that Snape does not bother DD about a DADA (at least, JKR does not mention it) even though the others are Quirrel, Lockhart, Moody, and Umbridge. Clearly Snape did not like any of these other four, but JKR notes that he is especially miffed about Lupin. Hmmm.... 2. Snape subs for Lupin and assigns an essay on werewolves. He is especially nasty about this (even for Snape). 3. Lupin discovers that Snape has assigned the werewolf essay. He cancels it. He does not assign an essay on vampires. 4. Harry is in trouble. Snape has caught him sneaking out the Hogsmeade and in possession of the map. Snape is putting the pressure on. Summons Lupin to office to discuss map. Starts to put the pressure on Lupin. Lupin offers a lame cover for the map (like Snape believed it was a joke shop item) and then (as if to silence an anticipated retort) he says asks Harry if he can talk to him about his vampire essay. Snape does not respond. Lupin and Harry exit to hallway where they do not discuss any vampire essay. 5. Future books reveal Lupin's curr. for DADA and surprisingly vampires are not mentioned (but all other monsters they covered are). In addition, vampires seem to be much more complex monsters than the others covered by third years (bloodcaps and such). This exchange got me to thinking about Snape. We know he has some secret. Probably multiple secrets. Mainly, why did he leave the DE? Why did he come to Hogwarts? As I peiced back through the books I noticed that (1) JKR is always talking about vampires (like a running joke to herself), (2) Snape looks like a vampire (see both description of Snape in book and drawing by JKR), (3) Snape is described as a bat several times by multiple characters, (4) Snape is skilled at reading minds (a power attributed to vampires in many myths), (5) Snape was treated by Filch in book one when he was injured (which, at the time, seems like a way to avoid the attention of his fellow teachers...but we later learn that this is not the case...he is on the side of good...so why Filch....who is a bit on the dark side himself), (6) Snape is often pictured in the books doing things at night (roaming the halls, the dark forest, outside the castle looking for Harry...why was Snape doing this and not McGonagall?), (7) indeed, Snape is often used by DD for special physical tasks (guard the stone, search the forests, etc.) which seems odd (Snape is not an athelete or anything), (8) JKR says DD won't give Snape DADA because it would "bring out the worst in him" (what does that mean?), (9) Quirrels been teaching at Hogwarts for awhile, but suddenly he is very concerned about vampires (needs a "new" book on vampires....Hagrid says he ran into a vampire during his year off...but when was that...last year....or before he started teaching...not clear...what is clear is that Snape is on his case). Just to mention a few things. So I thought, "Might Snape be a vampire? Is that what JKR is hinting at? Is that possibly part of the reason he left the DE? Maybe he contracted vampirism and was shunned by LV, the DEs, or something like that?" The more I looked, the more it seemed to be a possibility. I mentioned it to others and they were like, "Whoa...that's crazy...but, yeah, that would make this make more sense...or, maybe that explains why this happened.." Sure, there is canon evidence suggesting he is not. Where are his pointy teeth? Well, most myths say that vampire grow there teeth before they feed (or they would be pretty easy to identity). Where are all the dead bodies from him feeding? Well, there are a number of ways around this. He is a potions master. Maybe he mixed a potion (like Blade). Maybe he feeds on non-humans (like chickens, or deer in the forests...we know there are other vampires there and we have seen Snape go in there...doesn't seemed bothered by it and DD seems to think of him when he thinks forest....see end of OoTP). What about a coffin? Well, we haven't seen where Snape sleeps and if he is like most vampires his coffin is probably hidden. Most of all, what about sunlight? JKR already gave us a way out of this. Lupin feared the moonlight of a full moon, but he drank a potion and it allowed him to survive it. Who made that potion? Why none other than Snape. Anyway, none of this is to say that Snape "has" to be a vampire. All it says is that there is canon evidence and a logical reason for Snape being a vampire. He might not be. But I think I have laid out a reasonable case that a person can look at and say, "Hmmm that's interesting...I may not believe it...but I can see what you mean." Nuff outta me, Jake From jakejensen at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 08:25:27 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:25:27 -0000 Subject: Aunt Petunia & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88362 Interesting conversation about Petunia. I am beginning to think that Petunia was the evesdropper who heard the prophesy. Who's the biggest evesdropper we know who doesn't work for the Daily Prophet? Why, it's Petunia. Maybe she was tending bar there or something. She just seems to know too much about the WW and JKR keeps mentioning that she is loves to spy on others. Jake From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 10 08:52:13 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:52:13 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88363 Carol wrote: > But having godparents isn't comparable to using "cool" expressions. > The word "godparents" has God in it and relates to the ceremony of > baptism (or possibly some similar rite in other religions). If the WW > has kept the secular elements of Christmas (Father Christmas, aka > Santa Claus) and Easter candy but discarded the religious elements > (rather like American department stores), wouldn't they change the > term "godparent" to something else? sachmet96: I think it is compareable to a cool expression. It's kind of like a tradition to give a child a godparent who is to take care of it should anything happen to the parents. I had a godparent but neither of us were religious. Why invent a new term if there is already one that covers the responisbilities of the job (so to speak). I am aware that there is more to a godparent when it is seen from a religious point of view, but I have never seen a godparent/godchild relationship that is connected in any way to a religion. Carol wrote: Notice that they haven't gone > politically correct by bringing in Hanukkah and Kwanzaa or wishing > each other "happy holidays." It looks to me as if the WW reflects > Muggle Britain in, say, the 1970s. I can't tell whether the Christian > elements are wholly secularized or whether witches and wizards marry > in church (or a synagogue, if they're Anthony Goldstein's parents) and > baptize their children. Maybe JKR is trying to show that her WW has > nothing to do with Wicca and is really not all that different from the > mainstream Muggle world (despite outmoded instititions such as > slavery, which existed along with Christianity for hundreds of years). sachmet96: But we should also consider that Lily was a muggle. We do no know if any wizard child does have a godparent. We also don't see Ron getting presents from any godparent. (correct me if I am wrong on that I don't have the books with me). From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Sat Jan 10 09:01:35 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:01:35 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88364 hi, I was stuck by something small and may be insignificant but it does bear upon this sexism issue. I have noticed that none of the main female characters is desribed as beautiful. The same thing does not apply to important males in the canon. Sirius is handsome and Lupin in his own way. But the only truly beautiful woman in the series happens to be Bellatrix. Hermione turns out to be pretty for a while but doesn't care about physical appearance at all. And other school girls who are goodlooking are usually unintelligent bordering on being bimbettes. I think JKR perpetuates this silly notion that beauty and brains do not reside together, that intelligent girls do not or should not care about beauty or if we take the Bellatrix example, beauty might actually be evil because it is used in power game. Bye spangb From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 10 09:31:24 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:31:24 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88365 Geoff wrote: > Myrtle knew that the tap has never worked in her time in the place, > i.e from perhaps 1940 onwards. That tap could not be an original piece of Hogwarts plumbing because taps weren't around a thousand years ago. I recently visited the old underground conduits in Exeter which were built to bring water into the cathedral and the city about 600 years ago and although they were an excellent piece of engineering for their time, they were stone lined and there was no piping in the sense that we would expect today. The interesting question becomes whether there has been an heir of Slytherin at Hogwarts prior to Tom Riddle who was there at a time when a piped water system was installed. Berit replies: Just for the sake of argument :-): I agree of course that Myrtle wouldn't know whether the tap worked prior to her time, but canon doesn't really support any heir of Slytherin prior to Tom, who ever opened the chamber, does it? After all, the ones who should know (Binns the history professor for instance) seems to believe the tale of the chamber of secrets is just a myth (well, except for Dumbledore maybe :-). So if there had been one or several major outbreaks of mysterious muggle/"mudblood" killings during Hogwarts' history, even if they happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago; wouldn't "Hogwarts - A History" have mentioned it? One just get the feeling it has been quiet about the chamber of secrets ever since Salazar created it. With one exception; Tom Riddle's adventure. Also, even if the Muggle world didn't have plumbing a thousand years ago, it doesn't mean the Magic world didn't; they don't seem very advanced technically compared to te Muggle world of our day and age, but the opposite might have been true long, long ago... Though I must admit I'm inclined to go with you on this one :-) Carol wrote; Or possibly Tom himself etched the snake on the tap when he first discovered the entrance as a way of identifying the entrance for the person who discovered his diary. Or he might even have been showing off--writing "the Heir of Slytherin is here" in secret code. Whatever his motive, I think he's the person most likely to have etched the snake on the tap. (I entirely agree with the rest of your argument, especially Myrtle's use of "never" to mean "never in my time at Hogwarts." She's still mentally a little girl of about twelve who would have little knowledge of or interest in Hogwarts' thousand-year history.) Berit replies: It sounds probable that Tom was the one etching the snake into the tap after he discovered where the entrance to the secret chamber was located. But if the sinks and the "modern" plumbing wasn't there when Salazar created the entrance, I wonder how the whole construction slid away so easily. Also, some coincidence that the modern pipe system led straight to the chamber of secrets. Great luck, wouldn't you say? But it's magic I guess :-) Well, as you see I'm still a bit inclined the plumbing system/pipes etc. were there at Salazar's time, unless some later, "modern" Heir of Slytherin-engineer knowing about the chamber of secrets made sure the pipes connected to the chamber when it was installed many hundred years later. Which I doubt somehow. At least that person seem to have been able to restrain him or herself to not unleash the chamber's monster :-) Well, I like arguing :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 10 10:10:45 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:10:45 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as heirs of Slytherin? Was: Why put the entrance to the Cos in a girls' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88366 Carol: > They [the Weasleys] can't be heirs of Slytherin because Tom Riddle was the last descendant (through his muggle-born mother). Also, as you say, the Weasleys are purebloods. If they were descended from Salazar Slytherin through another branch of the Slytherin family that didn't intermarry with Muggles, that descent would be reflected in their genealogical records and known to all the pureblood families. Dumbledore would know it as well. Since he doesn't have any such information, we can safely assume that Voldemort is the last of the Slytherin line. Berit replies: You're basing this on the assumption that that the Heir of Slytherin title is inherited from parent to child in a straight line. Canon- wise we don't know exactly how the title is inherited, do we? Maybe it hasn't only got to do with (direct) blood lineage? Also, there could be several branches of Slytherin descendants all distantly related to him, so even if Voldemort is the present heir, it doesn't have to rule out other relatives should Voldie die. By the way; I don't believe the Weasleys will turn out as heirs of Slytherin, but we can't really rule that out based on the fact that we don't know how the title is inherited. I have a theory someone else other than Voldie is or is going to be the heir of Slytherin, ether by blood lineage or by "accident" or possibly both (Voldemort made him his /equal/ when trying to kill him...). Well, I just think that inheriting the heir of Slytherin title might not be just a simple matter of direct lineage. Sorry; don't have the books with me, but can't recall Tom Riddle's mom being muggle-born? Wasn't she a pure-blooded witch? His father was muggleborn though (and a muggle). Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 10:28:54 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:54 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: <53.2e053d0.2d30a9b3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88367 > rtb333 said: > I know that it was discussed earlier on, but I was wonder if anyone > > had any insights into what the Small thing in COS that will be big > in Book 6 is. (snip of spy/hand of glory bit) Erin: Why, yes, actually, I do have an idea as to what it could possibly be. You mentioned your belief that there will be a spy in the Order, and I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe that it is CoS that gives us our first clue as to the spy will be. Let me quote the relevant passage. It takes place in chapter nine, right after the writing on the wall has been discovered. ***************************** "I know it's weird," said Harry. "The whole thing's weird. What was that writing on the wall about? *The Chamber Has Been Opened*.... What's that supposed to mean?" "You know, it rings a sort of bell," said Ron slowly. "I think someone told me a story about a secret chamber at Hogwarts once... might've been Bill...." ****************************** But later in the book we learn that evidence of the chamber has been covered up for the last fifty years. The only people who know of the legend in Harry's time are Slytherins. So how did Bill find this information out? He must have been hanging around the Slytherins, yes? For further evidence that this passage is important, I point to the fact that, in the very next line, Harry not only interrupts Ron, but changes the subject completely, which is one of the very effective devices the author frequently uses in order to conceal important information. Erin From jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com Sat Jan 10 02:37:45 2004 From: jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com (jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:37:45 -0500 Subject: Flaw Between Prisoner of Azkaban (POA) and Order of the Phoenix (OOP) Message-ID: <000001c3d722$be1960e0$6401a8c0@jamesz9ibq8rxr> No: HPFGUIDX 88368 In POA Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are both worried about Black trying to find and kill Harry. But if they had been in the OOP any length of time they would have know about Black and who's side he was on. I can find no reason why they wouldn't have known. Maybe I'm reading to much into it or I've over looked something in a later book that explained it but I'm looking for inputs into this. James E. Bennett [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 06:17:58 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:17:58 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88369 Robert Jones wrote: > > JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think > > one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. > Regina S. wrote: > I have to agree that all signs point to Ron. The only ray of hope I > have is in the first Divination class in PoA where Harry reads Ron's > tea leaves and says "you're going to suffer but be very happy". Of > course, he could be happy and then die...and Ron's response to > Harry's prediction is "you need your inner eye tested". > > Hmph. Haven't cheered myself up at all with that. Now me (Andrew), All of this speculation is fine and all, but you still must remember; these are all charactars designed by JKR, all of their actions are designed by JKR, etc. She knows how the fans love the 3 amigos, it would be in her best interest to keep them intact. I can see Ron attempting to sacrafice his life, or sacrificing himself; creating the illusion of death, but she would ultimately bring him to life. The actions of Harry and Ron with the tea leaves is fine to speculate upon, but these are not real people; only figmants of JKR's imagination. When she says that he will have great suffering, and then great happiness, she intends it to be in that order, not reversed. Although she is sly with her words, she has never yet used a clue such as that, and it is not in her style. She shows every sign of the truth, but the truth is only revealed in the end. She lays the clues in a path as to not show the reader the real ending. Just my thoughts though. Andrew From nakedkali at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 06:30:39 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:30:39 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang, Hiding, History, and Triwizard (was Scandinavia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88370 Ba said: [snipped by Sea Change] "Krum" is that name of an early Bulgarian king known for his wisdom and benevolence. Rarely are names in the canon random... Fran said: Also, didn't Krum play on the Bulgarian National Quidditch team? Sea Change replies: These are interesting posts, because they get to the strategic nub of the matter. There's much fine analysis posted here, but not much broad qualitative logic, to my own way of thinking. Here are some ideas that rattled through my mind when reading the most recent posts on the matter. a)Wizards go out of their way to hide. The founders of any particular school don't have to be from anywhere around where the school actually is. Wizards know how to apparate and portkey. There's no cannon evidence that these spells of mass transportation are a modern thing like the muggle automobile and airplane. I am happy to suppose Durmstrang is in Scandinavia, even though the names are wrong. Hogwarts doesn't sound either Scots Lied or Scots Gaelic to me, but Scotland would be an easier place to hide and make muggleproof than anywhere further south, so I think of it as founded by Englishfolk. b)Wizarding schools are historically old. During the 30 Years war, a Swedish king (Christian Gustavus?) conquered most of the Baltic and Hanseatic regions, Norway wasn't a separate entity, and the areas of Finland and Murmansk probably switched back and forth from Russian rule to Swedish rule many times. Scandinavia may have a more specific definition now, but the region was politicallly much larger in the past. If German wizards wanted to start a school then, during this age of many armies marching through, somewhere bucolic north of Tromso: Norway would be a good, safe, choice. Also, the Krum name is possibly also good, as royals (who are most interested in pureblood, because they are royal) tend to be related to every other one. c)Hermione makes much of Hogwarts being non-apparatable. If it were generally true that all schools are this way, then she wouldn't need to say it in just this way. This also leads me to speculate that if Hogwarts were to go to another school for Triwizard tournament, not only would they appear on threstrals (as mentioned by a previous poster), they'd Apparate in with a huge bang. If your school is apparatable, you'd want a deceptive name. ------ I am a Californian and am used to the high mountains in the Sierras. When I learned that the highest mountain in the UK was less than 4000 feet, it really messed with my head because I was raised to think of those that are that height nearby as merely foothills. Maybe Durmstrang is 'mountainous' only from a Unitedkingdomese point of view? Sea Change From nakedkali at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 06:56:00 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:56:00 -0000 Subject: Dunderheads, Mrs. Figg, and the Hearing (was Chaper 8) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88371 Diana L. wrote: [much snippage by Sea Change] I think your assessment of Fudge and Percy as "Blundering Dunderheads" is quite accurate. And I just love the name you came up with! LOL I also don't think Fudge is ESE or that Percy is a secret spy for Dumbledore. Sometimes basically good characters do dumb things that end up helping the villian and, IMHO, this is the case with Fudge and Percy. ----- Sea Change responds: What's being missed IMO in most of this thread and its ancestors is that getting 50 free-willed humans, each of which is important enough to belong on any deliberating body, to actually meet for a special session is like herding cats. Perhaps it seems this way to me because I am foolish enough in RL to have belonged to several volunteer non-profit boards. In my experience it is a difficult undertaking, and never happens in an information vaccuum. Dumbledore couldn't have been surprised by this meeting. Even then I supposed that the Wizengamot was a much bigger body, only that Fudge had got himself a specially selected quorum for the legal procedure at hand. Convening the Congress of the United States to impeach Clinton for a little nookie is HUGE news, so if it's the entirety of the Wizengamot, and for someone so famous (or notorious) as Harry Potter, and noone knew about it, I'd be absolutely stunned. The whole of the UK has 630+ mundane Members of Parliament, even though it's just the size of California. I expect similarly lots of people representing smallish areas in the Wizengamot. (Now Sea Change goes lightly off to the side to the Mrs. Figg branch of this thread). Given the apparently hand-picked nature of this particular jury, it seems likely Fudge may very well have picked people who wouldn't particularly know whether or not a Squib could see a Dementor. It is his downfall that Madam Bones knows that one doesn't need to particularly see one, to know one is there. I wonder where the all the requisite chocolate was in this book? (back on topic) You can make a blunder to choose to do this, but you can't be a Dunderhead, because no-one would heed you! Sea Change From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 10 12:11:07 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:11:07 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88372 Jake wrote: << So I thought, "Might Snape be a vampire? Is that what JKR is hinting at? Is that possibly part of the reason he left the DE? Maybe he contracted vampirism and was shunned by LV, the DEs, or something like that?" The more I looked, the more it seemed to be a possibility.>> Sigune: I like your evidence from the canon, and indeed, it is striking how many references to vampires occur. But I am still not convinced - the vampire thing may turn out to mean something in the plot line, for sure, but it might have nothing to do with Snape at all. Snape is deliberately being pictured as someone very unpleasant and even scary, and what strikes me is that he himself never ever attempts to change other people's perception of him. If he really were a vampire, and if this were to be kept secret, then why on earth does he dress in robes and cloaks that give him a bat-like appearance, and skulks around the castle and grounds at night? Snape is at least as theatrical as Trelawny, I would venture to say; he dresses for effect and deliberately seems to adopt attitudes. If he is really dark and evil, or vampiric, that would mean he is wearing his heart (or his secrets) on his sleeve, which seems rather a strange thing to do for a spy. And I am /totally/ unconvinced by vampirism as the reason for Snape's leaving the DE's. I cannot believe Dumbledore being persuaded to enlist Snape as a spy when told, "Hi, I'm a vampire so the DE's don't want me anymore, can I be with you lot now?" - though I think Snape- as-vampire-or-dhampir-fanfics and theories are very enjoyable. In any case, whatever is revealed in books 6 and 7 concerning dear Severus had better be good, because the speculations are so fascinating that it seems hard to do better :)... Yours severely, Sigune, who /adores/ wrong impressions. From cburchak at telusplanet.net Sat Jan 10 06:08:59 2004 From: cburchak at telusplanet.net (Cora) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:08:59 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88373 I've just finished reading the "Knight to King" theory revolving around Ron's place in the HP universe. It is a very amazing theory very detailed and solidly based in canon. It is based on the chess game in PS/SS and explains Ron's dual role in the chess game as both Knight and "Player/King". They actualy have drawn many of the same conclusions that you have. But Ron doesn't doesn't die in their theory. I HIGHLY recommend that everyone check out this site! I know that I'll be re-reading the books carefully with this theory in mind. The theory requires more fleshing out in terms of how Aberforth fits in but we are still waiting for 2 more books before we can unravel all of JKR's mysteries. http://homepage.mac.com/ixchelmala/Knight2King/Personal51.html From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 10 12:48:51 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:48:51 -0000 Subject: Flaw Between Prisoner of Azkaban (POA) and Order of the Phoenix (OOP) In-Reply-To: <000001c3d722$be1960e0$6401a8c0@jamesz9ibq8rxr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > In POA Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are both worried about Black trying to find > and kill Harry. But if they had been in the OOP any length of time they > would have know about Black and who's side he was on. I can find no > reason why they wouldn't have known. Maybe I'm reading to much into it > or I've over looked something in a later book that explained it but I'm > looking for inputs into this. sachmet96 In POA everyone believed Black a murderer and traitor (there was no evidence that he was not), so there was no reason Mr. and Mrs. Weasley would not be worried. Even Harry thought Black was after him. Only at the very end of the book it was revealed that Black was not the secret keeper and not after Harry. And I am not 100% sure but I think that the OOP was not resurected at that time of POA (and anyways Black would not have been a member of the new order at that time). It was resurected in GoF and even if they were members of the original order, they would still have believed Black to be guilty. As did Lupin, DD and everyone else. From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 10 13:32:16 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:32:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) References: Message-ID: <001401c3d77e$2a5d13e0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88375 }Spang said} I think JKR perpetuates this silly notion that beauty and brains do not reside together, that intelligent girls do not or should not care about beauty or if we take the Bellatrix example, beauty might actually be evil because it is used in power game {Anne Repsonded} Or else she uses beauty as more of a statement than anything else--and not necassailry in a sexist way. Note that in the examples you sited, there was a specific reason for the woman's beauty (or lack thereof) to be noted. (Warning, working off memory here, and don't have the books in my lap...again...:P) Hermione, for instance...the only time we're really asked to look at her 'beauty' is when the potion that makes her teeth grow too large comes into play....when she goes to Pomfrey to get them fixed, she actaully has the woman (unknowingly) shrink them to a smaller size than they were originally so that she's no longer buck-toothed. Although it acknowledges that Hermione didn;t like her buck teeth, and wanted to look 'prettier' by doing away with them, it doesnt really state whether she's drop dead gorgeous, pretty, plain, OR ugly. And other than a breif description of her looks in book one, that's the only nod to her 'looks' that we get--but there's no text to support (that I remember) that she's either plain OR ugly....perhaps average, but then most people are average in looks--so there's really no point in belaboring the fact, including writing out how many 'hours' Hermione may or may not spedn in front of the mirror each morning to 'look good'. Now, if Hermione does ti to catch someones attnetion at the school dnace in the next two books, then we're likely to see more of her 'beauty', if only to emphasis how good she;s trying to look for her current interest.. Cho is obviously pretty (pretty enough to catch Harry's attention for a book and a half in fact), but I would hardly call her a 'Bimbette'. She seems to be young, intelligent...and you can't really blame her for moping around in book 5--Cedric meant a LOT to her, and everyone deals with grief differently. Her way was to shut off in most things and dwell on Cedric. Perhaps a little self-absorbed, but that hardly qualifies as 'bimbette' material. The half-veela girl (Sorry, no book, no name...^^;) from Beaubaxtons is also pretty, and sure, she seems a bit flightly--but is that because of her looks, or her upbringing and/or nature as a half-veela? Also, all we really see of her is bits and pieces--hardly enough evidence to 'prove' that she's a 'bimbette'...(although certinaly old enough to like the guys...and knows that looks work very well on them often enough)...add to that Maxine--who although a half-gaintess, comes across as a 'handsome', if not 'beautiful woman--and certianly no bimbette by any measure (She even has the sense Hagrid, poor chap, seems to be lacking much of the time...) The only student that stands out as 'ugly' is Millicent Bulstrode, who is described as ox-like often enough, due to her size and less than pretty face--but in her case, her looks seem to be there to match her attitude--bul(ly)ish, strong, and eager for a fight with other non-slyth kids. Bellatrix seems to more of an example than a standard--rather, actually in the Japanime tradition (If I may be so bold)--in which stunning beauty hides a stunning ugliness (and/or evil) within. Over time though, whether by choice or circumstance, the 'ugly' always wins out, unveiling itself at the last turn of the story when the good and the bad battle it out--just as it did for Belle. Once stunning, her beauty has been wasted away by time, the ministrations of the Dementors in Azkaban, and her own inner nature finally coming to the fore--making her truly as ugly as her soul by the time we see her at the end of book 5. Other than a few other women (Molly's 'frumpiness' is perfectly natural for a middle-aged woman with a lot of children to look after), Rowling actaully avoids physcial descriptives as a rule, or so I believe, and relies more on their personality and actions to see them through. 'Beauty' or "ugliness' is barely given a nod...unless it is a core part of that character--even her nod to James and Sirius seems to be more of a 'these guys were so cute, the girls couldn't help but stare' sort of thing--and when we see Sirius in current times, much of his 'beauty' is also gone--a victim of time and circumstance, much as Belle's was. So as far as the 'look' factor goes, I don't think it's that she's reverting to sexism...she's using it as a statement for certain characters. Anne From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 14:13:34 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:13:34 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtb333" wrote: > I know that it was discussed earlier on, but I was wonder if anyone > had any insights into what the Small thing in COS that will be big in > Book 6 is. > > How about Dobby? He is "something small." :) I personally think House Elves are going to be of MAJOR importance in the grand scheme. Allie From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 14:29:06 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:29:06 -0000 Subject: Flaw Between Prisoner of Azkaban (POA) and Order of the Phoenix (OOP) In-Reply-To: <000001c3d722$be1960e0$6401a8c0@jamesz9ibq8rxr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > In POA Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are both worried about Black trying to find > and kill Harry. But if they had been in the OOP any length of time they > would have know about Black and who's side he was on. I can find no > reason why they wouldn't have known. Maybe I'm reading to much into it > or I've over looked something in a later book that explained it but I'm > looking for inputs into this. > > James E. Bennett I believe that it is Professor Lupin that says (in "The Woes of Mrs. Weasley") that Molly and Arthur were not in the Order last time around. They are apparantly new inductees for the second war. But then again, even Lupin and Dumbledore doubted Sirius' innocence, because it was kept quite that the Potters changed secret keepers from Black to Peter. Meri (who thought the error you were talking about was the one with the OWL results) From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 14:48:14 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:48:14 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > Speaking for myself, my belief in the Snape!Vampire theory does not > stem from a desire to see a vampire in the story somewhere. My > belief was driven by the canon. Same here. I loved Snape before I ever ran across the vampire theory. Talking about it for years just makes me really want to see some in the book. You listed some good points pointing to Snape being a vampire. I don't see how they can be ignored or explained away so easily. I also wanted to say I haven't forgotten this thread. I actually have a rather lengthy reply in the works to this whole vampire discussion but I'm afraid the real world calls a great deal of the time. "K" From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 14:54:06 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:54:06 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88379 > Carol wrote: > Notice that they haven't gone > > politically correct by bringing in Hanukkah and Kwanzaa or wishing > > each other "happy holidays." It looks to me as if the WW reflects > > Muggle Britain in, say, the 1970s. Ginger: It well may reflect the 70's. As I am not British, I can't say for sure. Your comment on the 70's caught my interest. Lily and JKR are both products of the 70's. Lily had Harry in 1980 (81? Can't remember exactly). The 70's would have been her coming of age era. If naming a Godparent was the thing to do in the 70's, than she would have done so, regardless of what we do in this day and age. JKR would have been influenced by the 70's as well. I feel a bit of nostalgia when I read the stories. Perhaps she writes that way on purpose. When a person writes, they use things that are well-known to them. I know that as a Godmother myself, I could describe a Baptism well, but I'd be hardpressed to describe Purim, the 5 Pillars of Islam, or the 12 stations of the Cross. Perhaps it is a matter of her own familiarity. Besides, she *did* need a character that had a vested interest in Harry who wasn't family. Carol continues: I can't tell whether the > Christian > > elements are wholly secularized or whether witches and wizards marry > > in church (or a synagogue, if they're Anthony Goldstein's parents) > and > > baptize their children. Maybe JKR is trying to show that her WW has > > nothing to do with Wicca and is really not all that different from > the > > mainstream Muggle world (despite outmoded instititions such as > > slavery, which existed along with Christianity for hundreds of > years). Ginger: Not that I'm saying that she's actively trying to distance herself for Wicca, but I think you are quite right about her leaving it vague, and yet similar to the Muggle world. Personally, I don't think the WW seems to have one particular religion any more than the Muggle world does. It's each to one's own beliefs, as far as we've seen. The Dursleys don't seem to have any affiliation, so Harry would have been raised without any particular indoctrination. And, as has been pointed out, he does seem to only notice things that are right in his face. He could probably walk by a trio of students carrying a prayer mat, a rosery, and broomstick and he'd notice only the broomstick. > sachmet96: > But we should also consider that Lily was a muggle. We do no know if > any wizard child does have a godparent. We also don't see Ron getting > presents from any godparent. (correct me if I am wrong on that I > don't have the books with me). Ginger again: Good point! Harry is the only one we've seen with a Godparent. Ron would likely have said something like "Gee, my Godfather never gave me a Firebolt. All I got from him was my pet Puffskein." Neville seems to get things from Uncle Algie rather than from a Godfather. No one else seems to have one at all, not even Muggleborns. On the other hand, they all seem familiar with the term. Ron, at least, would have been one to ask if he had never heard the term. Back to what I said above. Someone with a vested interest who isn't family, fitting into the storyline in a manner with which JKR is familiar. In other words, plot device. All of this is, of course, just my opinion. Ginger, who's Godson is the bright spot in her life-even above HP! From artcase at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 15:02:41 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:02:41 -0000 Subject: Why put the entrance tothe Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: ...big snip here... > Well, as you see I'm still a bit inclined the plumbing system/pipes > etc. were there at Salazar's time, unless some later, "modern" Heir > of Slytherin-engineer knowing about the chamber of secrets made sure > the pipes connected to the chamber when it was installed many hundred > years later. Which I doubt somehow. At least that person seem to have > been able to restrain him or herself to not unleash the chamber's > monster :-) > > Well, I like arguing :-) > > Berit Well, I like "arguing" too, so here goes my theory. Magic works on objects to turn them into something else. Example: lead into gold. When Hogwarts was first fashioned by the founding four, each of them took objects to create into the castle. Suits of armor may or may not have been armor when the castle was created. Over the years of redecoration a statue may have been upgraded to a suit of armor. A column "recarved" magically to reflect an "art deco" look to match the new decor. Salazar's plumbing fixture, modeled after what was fashionable in that time (FYI BC Romans had plumbing and toilets) and subsequently modified with magic to fit the new decor. We muggles, for those on the list who think this way, do not see the 'shifting of the veil' that differenciates the physical realm from the meta. This reason makes us think in terms of "There weren't taps before...(insert date here)" therefore the object didn't exist. I argue that the object's nature existed and was modified to fit modern standards. A rock is a hammer, a hammer becomes a prybar, the prybar becomes a lever, the lever moves a rock. Art From artcase at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 15:08:38 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:08:38 -0000 Subject: Odd Thought... was...Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88381 Why was Tom Riddle in the girl's bathroom in the first place???? Art From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Sat Jan 10 15:13:19 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Bohacek) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:13:19 -0500 Subject: (FILK) I Read It In The Prophet Message-ID: <410-220041610151319238@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88382 Same topic...different viewpoint, I Read It In The Prophet (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _I Heard It Through the Grapevine_) There are several versions of this song, but being the person I am, I dig C.C.R.'s version the best. Midi is here (you have three to choose from...heh): http://ynucc.yeungnam.ac.kr/~bwlee/ccrmidi.htm Dedicated to Arcum. Aberforth's Archie-Bunker-type next door neighbor is singing (and his wife is the back-up): I read it in this morning's news Aberforth has been accused Of a certain crime which I won't speak Because it makes my stomach weak Wasn't the least surprised 'Cause I knew Aberforth is a great fool I read it in the prophet 'Bout the crimes he did commit Oooo...Aberforth had to admit But he didn't seem to feel regret Gulpin' gargoyles, baby (Read it in the Prophet 'bout the crimes that he'd committed, baby) They say Aberforth is a good guy But that he has a darker side Casting charms On goats improperly Was found by the Ministry I could have told them myself Bet he does the House-elf Today I read it in the Prophet Always knew he wasn't legit Oooo...it got my wife all upset And I just about done threw a fit Gulpin' gargoyles, baby (Read it in the Prophet and he just about threw a fit, baby) They tell me you can't believe all you read But don't doubt he did the deed I'd often hear the noise next door In the House of Dumbledore So I know that it's all true What's the Wizarding World coming to? Oooo...I read it in the Prophet How could Aberforth have done it? Oooo...they took the goat to a vet This is something I'd rather forget Gulpin' gargoyles, baby (Read it in the Prophet something that I'd rather forget, baby) I knew all along That he's just plain wrong... Gail Bohacek houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 10 15:55:53 2004 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:55:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88383 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. It has to be pretty common, since cleaning up the effects of Muggle- baiting seems to be the main purpose of Arthur's job. An entire department of the Ministry, however tiny and disrespected, dedicated to the misuse of Muggle artifacts -- we're not talking a few isolated incidents here. As for Arthur, he *is* condescending by our standards, but by the standards of pureblood wizards, he's positively enlightened. I do think it says a lot about the current Ministry attitudes that Arthur's job did not go to a Muggleborn wizard. > 2. Arthur's statement that Lucius Malfoy was trying to sneak > into the courtroom is presumably a misdirection on JKR's part. > The corridor in which Harry and Arthur find him is the one > leading to the Department of Mysteries - was he perhaps > trying to sneak in? What business does Lucius have with Fudge? > > 3. Lucius greets Harry as 'Patronus Potter'. Is it significant that the only > two people we've met who've used this fashion of referring to > people are Death Eaters? I think that was Lucius' lame attempt to be insulting. Like Draco, Lucius isn't nearly as witty as he thinks he is. > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? It's the first instant in OOP, but it's not the first in the series. Look at her explanation of Ron's jealousy in GoF, and there might be other instances I'm forgetting right now. Hermione *is* more mature than both Harry and Ron (which wouldn't take much, frankly), and she often notices emotional undercurrents that the boys miss -- look at her response to Neville after Fake!Moody demonstrates the Cruciatus curse in GoF. I think in some ways, Hermione is taking over Dumbledore's role as Harry's guide in the books, as Dumbledore becomes more remote and fallible. > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? I actually think that Neville would've been a better choice. He needed a confidence booster as much as Ron did, and had already demonstrated, back in PS/SS, the courage to stand up to his peers for the good of the house. But in story terms, Neville is still too minor a character. Plus, his confidence booster came from the DA instead. Actually, I think the whole prefect storyline was kind of wasted in the book. Most of Ron's character development came from his role as a Quidditch player, not from his role of prefect. Of course, if he hadn't made prefect, he wouldn't have had a broom to get on the Quidditch team with, so perhaps that was its only purpose. Sorry I didn't answer all the questions, but these are the only ones I have anything interesting to say about at the moment. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From artcase at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 16:00:25 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:00:25 -0000 Subject: religion in the WW (wasRe: the missing godparent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88384 Art here: Random thoughts and observations on religion in HP First, I heard, or read in an interview that JKR considered herself to be a Christian. That coincides with a "write what you know" attitude and why the Wizarding World doesn't mention other holidays like Hanukkah, etc. > > Carol wrote: > > Notice that they haven't gone > > > politically correct by bringing in Hanukkah and Kwanzaa or wishing > > > each other "happy holidays." It looks to me as if the WW reflects > > > Muggle Britain in, say, the 1970s. > > Ginger: It well may reflect the 70's. As I am not British, I can't > say for sure. Your comment on the 70's caught my interest. Lily and > JKR are both products of the 70's. Lily had Harry in 1980 (81? Can't > remember exactly). The 70's would have been her coming of age era. > If naming a Godparent was the thing to do in the 70's, than she would > have done so, regardless of what we do in this day and age. > > JKR would have been influenced by the 70's as well. Snip snip here... > Carol continues: > I can't tell whether the Christian elements are wholly secularized or whether witches and wizards marry in church (or a synagogue, if they're Anthony Goldstein's parents) and baptize their children. Maybe JKR is trying to show that her WW has nothing to do with Wicca and is really not all that different from the mainstream Muggle world (despite outmoded instititions such as slavery, which existed along with Christianity for hundreds of years). Art here: Wicca is not mentioned at all, unless you count a veiled insinuation of its unimportance to the wizarding world when describing the "American" contingent at the Quidditch Cup. America on the whole is discounted as non-important to the WW. This may be odd, but when you consider JKR is British and Americans' overestimation of themselves in relation to the world scene, it is understandable. Unfortunetly, as an American, I find my eyes being forced open to see that we have forgotten much about history because we are indoctrinated to believe ourselves as the center of the universe. (I might be bold and add that this is a common theme among nations, once the British Empire considered itself to be the center of the universe.) I'm not a Wicca expert, but have perused enough overly-incensed occult book stores to understand there are five-thousand and one (plus) ways to celebrate the Wiccan philosophy. (Much like Christianity in that respect) What I am getting at is this: How can you effectively represent a "religion" that amorphous in a book if it is not your background? Another good reason to shun mentioning it is the possibility of being blacklisted by mainstream markets. (Financially a very smart move on JKR's part) > Ginger: > Not that I'm saying that she's actively trying to distance herself > for Wicca, but I think you are quite right about her leaving it > vague, and yet similar to the Muggle world. Personally, I don't > think the WW seems to have one particular religion any more than the > Muggle world does. It's each to one's own beliefs, as far as we've > seen. The Dursleys don't seem to have any affiliation, so Harry > would have been raised without any particular indoctrination. And, > as has been pointed out, he does seem to only notice things that are > right in his face. He could probably walk by a trio of students > carrying a prayer mat, a rosery, and broomstick and he'd notice only > the broomstick. > Art: Here! Here! Almost the good beginnings of a joke... A muggle walks into a shop in Diagon Alley carrying a prayer mat, a rosary, and a broomstick.... From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 10 16:41:20 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:41:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3d798$9364e650$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88385 > Erin: > > Why, yes, actually, I do have an idea as to what it could possibly be. > You mentioned your belief that there will be a spy in the Order, and > I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe that it is CoS that gives > us our first clue as to the spy will be. Let me quote the relevant > passage. It takes place in chapter nine, right after the writing on > the wall has been discovered. > > ***************************** > "I know it's weird," said Harry. "The whole thing's weird. What was > that writing on the wall about? *The Chamber Has Been Opened*.... > What's that supposed to mean?" > > "You know, it rings a sort of bell," said Ron slowly. "I think > someone told me a story about a secret chamber at Hogwarts once... > might've been Bill...." > ****************************** > > But later in the book we learn that evidence of the chamber has been > covered up for the last fifty years. The only people who know of the > legend in Harry's time are Slytherins. So how did Bill find this > information out? He must have been hanging around the Slytherins, > yes? Iggy de-cloaking for a second: 1: Considering the intricacy of the entrance to the chamber, both in the books and in the movie, I can't see that Slytherin himself was the one who built it... it was more likely that he hired some goblins to build it in secret while the school itself was constructed. (And then he added the magical aspects later... like needing to speak Parseltongue to open the chamber.) 2: While goblins might keep something secret from people who don't employ them, I can't really see them as the type to not gossip among themselves. 3: Bill worked for the goblins at Gringotts for years as a curse breaker... He probably overheard them mentioning it at some point. Another possibility is that, since the Egyptians are famous for secret passages and hidden rooms, the chamber was probably accidentally brought up by one of the goblins in a conversation with them. 4: You mention that the only ones who know about the chamber in Harry's time were the Slytherins... but Bill, technically, isn't from Harry's time. He left the school *years* before Harry ever got there. It's more appropriate to say that he's from the generation between Harry, and Arthur & Molly. (Especially when you consider how slowly people seem to age in the WW...) He could have heard about it as a "residual urban legend" that died off by the time Harry got there. 5: Bill MAY have heard it from Arthur and Molly at some point, since the original opening of the chamber, IIRC, happened around the time that the parents were going to school. 6: If the only people who knew about the chamber in Harry's time were the Slytherins... why bother to ask the teachers about it? And how would they know? (Oh, wait... all the teachers are former Slytherins, no matter what house they're associated with... right? *grin*) 'Nuff said. Iggy McSnurd (re-dons his invisibility cloak.) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jan 10 16:55:08 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:55:08 +0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88386 Kneasy takes up the cudgels again, though the way be weary and long, still onward he presses, seduced not by siren voices promising rest and succour to his keyboard if he would only cease his objections. Quite a long one, this; but I wanted to address all of the points raised. I've managed a bit of snipping, wish it could have been more but it might have made it confusing. > Jake: This is an insightful observation. True, most significant character transformations occur over the course of a single text. However, I think it is safe to say that significant character revelations are approaching for Lily Evans, one of the Dursleys (probably Pet.), one of the OoTP (probably turn out to be a counterspy), Neville (or one of the Longbottoms), and Snape (just to name a few). These character transformations will be appear at the end of the series, even though JKR has been developing them for thousands of pages. So, for example, if all of a sudden Petunia is revealed to be a squib who lived actively in the WW for most of her early years it would be a lengthy revelation (started in book one). So, given that such transformations/revelations are likely for at least some of the main characters, I think we should consider them a definite possibility. > Kneasy: I see a difference here (are you surprised?). Character development is one thing, turning a central figure into a non-human for no apparent benefit as something else entirely. Harry is changing, so is Neville; this is to be expected with the development of teenagers. Our perceptions of James and Fudge have changed, those of Lily and Petunia might as the story unfolds. But as I see it this is part of the explication for events past and background for action to come. They will still remain Harry, Neville, Fudge etc., they will not become an Elf, Troll or Goblin. I'm looking forward to the certain revelations that explain Snape's actions and attitudes, they should be (they'd better be! Do you hear me up there in Scotland, JK?) fascinating. But I want them to be understandable human motivations, not a throw-away "Oh, he's a vampire, so you must expect him to be nasty." What a let down that would be. Going on to your other points: Well, we do learn in OoP that Snape has been after the DADA job for years. Have you considered that Snape is anti-Lupin because he was one of the gang that tormented him? That he sees Lupin being appointed DADA as rubbing salt in his wounds? That he may (would, most likely) have heard about the map from Filch, who confiscated it? Why else would he summon Lupin? He knows where and who it originated from. Lupin appears to be a restrained and fair person, not one to make rash accusations. Now if he suspected Snape to be a vampire, it's a fair bet that Sirius would too (not in PoA maybe, but later). Now he is very different; he'd throw accusations around like confetti - yet he doesn't. Why would a vampire come to Hogwarts? More - why would a vampire come to Hogwarts and think he could get away with it for 14 years when Hogwarts is where students learn about such monsters? > Jake: As I peiced back through the books I noticed that (1) JKR is always talking about vampires (like a running joke to herself), > Kneasy: Not always, just sometimes. It may indeed be a running joke; it may also be because she needs to mention a recognisable monster sometimes and not everyone will have bought copies of FBaWTFT. (Is it still in print for new converts? I'm not certain.) > (2) Snape looks like a vampire (see both description of Snape in book and drawing by JKR), > Kneasy: Tall, thin, pale, dark clothes does not a vampire make, IMO. For me he calls to mind Mr Murdstone, not Dracula. > (3) Snape is described as a bat several times by multiple characters, > Kneasy: Any bats flickering through the twilight? Any scratching at the windows at midnight? Umbridge is described as a toad. Nice. > (4) Snape is skilled at reading minds (a power attributed to vampires in many myths), > Kneasy: Maybe they do. But do they have to have a wand to cast spells to do it? > (5) Snape was treated by Filch in book one when he was injured (which, at the time, seems like a way to avoid the attention of his fellow teachers...but we later learn that this is not the case...he is on the side of good...so why Filch....who is a bit on the dark side himself), > Kneasy: To avoid the attention of Quirrell, maybe. And what's this about Filch? Lovely man; sweetness and light personified. Sort of. No, he just hates kids, they ruin his lovely tidy school and keep breaking the rules. > (6) Snape is often pictured in the books doing things at night (roaming the halls, the dark forest, outside the castle looking for Harry...why was Snape doing this and not McGonagall?), (7) indeed, Snape is often used by DD for special physical tasks (guard the stone, search the forests, etc.) which seems odd (Snape is not an athelete or anything), > Kneasy: Snape seems to have made it his mission, or it's a mission entrusted to him, to keep Harry out of trouble; he comes to the rescue on a number of occasions, and I don't think it's accidental. Yes, DD does trust him; he could almost be DD's deputy in the Order. He certainly knows things that the other Order members don't know. Why would DD need to find a jock athlete to do his chores? A powerful wizard is much more useful, and I don't doubt that Snape is very powerful. > (8) JKR says DD won't give Snape DADA because it would "bring out the worst in him" (what does that mean?), > Kneasy: He'd probably do a Crouch!Moody and torture the little buggers, either that or get the Slytherins to practice casting curses on the Gryfindors. Serve 'em right, but it'd look bad in the Daily Prophet. In truth, I don't know. Like you I'll be interested to find out. > (9) Quirrels been teaching at Hogwarts for awhile, but suddenly he is very concerned about vampires (needs a "new" book on vampires. Hagrid says he ran into a vampire during his year off. > Kneasy: Or was it because he wanted to get away from Harry and the Leaky Cauldron as quickly as possible and any reasonable excuse would do? He is not Harry's friend. It's not long before he tries to kill him. > Jake: So I thought, "Might Snape be a vampire? Is that what JKR is hinting at? Sure, there is canon evidence suggesting he is not. Where are all the dead bodies from him feeding? Well, there are a number of ways around this. He is a potions master. Maybe he mixed a potion (like Blade). Maybe he feeds on non-humans What about a coffin? Well, we haven't seen where Snape sleeps and if he is like most vampires his coffin is probably hidden. Most of all, what about sunlight? JKR already gave us a way out of this. Lupin feared the moonlight of a full moon, but he drank a potion and it allowed him to survive it. Who made that potion? Why none other than Snape. > Kneasy: One point that you may want to consider after comparing Lupin with Snape!Vampire - the WW seems to consider that lycanthropy is an illness that can be treated. Lupin's disease is only able to be 'controlled' not cured because the really effective potion was invented after he contracted it. Vampirism on the other hand, is a state of being that is non-human. They seem to be seen as a race apart. They live, apparently, in wild places. Humans shun them. There may be spells to repel them (otherwise Quirrell would never have escaped from his bit of trouble), but in the WW there is no evidence that they can be or should be 'cured'. And when did Snape 'die'? Didn't anyone notice? Are you suggesting that Filch is his Igor, shifting his coffin, keeping it polished? Snape!Vampire would be a major disappointment to me. As I've said before it would give him an excuse for being nasty, when I want reasons, solid human motives. There's a tale to tell there, and I don't think it's "Interview with the Vampire'. In addition, I cannot see how it would credibly advance the storyline, either to explain past events or to set things up for the future. Now I *might* just have been able to swallow it if he had been introduced as a semi-house-trained vampire from day 1. There'd be a lot of tension and potential in that, but to dump it on us now would upset a lot of fans, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 17:48:02 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:48:02 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: <000b01c3d65b$cf43a230$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88387 Helen R. Granberry wrote: Theory: Knight2King Thesis Statement: The chess game the trio plays at the end of PS/SS is a metaphor for the Second War between the forces of good led by Albus Dumbledore, and the forces of evil led by Lord Voldemort. It predicts future events as well as sheds light on the past and present. Combines the Chess theory and the Ron is Dumbledore theory (REDHEAD ALWAYS). vmonte replies: I also think that Ron is Dumbledore--I posted this thought on 1/3/04, # 88007. Here is another theory I have-- Hermione is MacGonagall! If Ron is Dumbledore, could MacGonagall be Hermione? It would be funny if MaGonagall gave Hermione the hour glass in the 3rd book to later prepare her for real time travel. (Rowling even turns Hermione into a cat in the series--a clue that she is MaGonagall!--this idea could only work if Hermione learns how to become an animagi in book 6 or 7 (just like James Potter's crew did). MaGonagall stated in book 5 that she was going to give Harry private lessons to prepare him for his future career (MaGonagall and Umbridge argument). Hermione is always teaching Harry--and she is still teaching him as MaGonagall. MaGonagall and Dumbledore are married---aka Hermione and Ron!!! vmonte From sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 17:56:13 2004 From: sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com (sarcasticmuppet) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:56:13 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > hi, > I was stuck by something small and may be insignificant but it > does bear upon this sexism issue. I have noticed that none of the > main female characters is desribed as beautiful. I must disagree. Fleur Delacour (who I am positive we will see more of in coming books, perhaps as Mrs. Fleur Delacour Weasley) was the Boubatons Champion. I got the impression that the B. students that attended the tournament were *incredibly* competitive (two girls at the Goblet ceremony started sobbing after Fleur's name was called, and after five years experience at band auditions, I know *exactly* how they felt). The Goblet of Fire chose Fleur over the many other students, both male and female. She obviously had the skills needed to perform in the tournament, not least of which would have been the ability to use her head. The fact that Fleur is drop-dead-gorgeous goes without saying. >The same thing does > not apply to important males in the canon. Sirius is handsome and > Lupin in his own way. But the only truly beautiful woman in the > series happens to be Bellatrix. now me: You say "Lupin in his own way," which I think is a bit interesting. I'd only considered Sirius as the heart-breakingly beautiful one, while Lupin is always described as a bit sickly, old, or tired due to his werewolf problem. Saying Lupin is attractive in his own way is a bit of a double standard, IMHO, because "attractive/handsome in his/her own way" can apply to every single character in the series, male or female. As for Bella, I wouldn't go as far as describing her as "truly beautiful." Harry can see the darkness of Bella's persona (In Dumbledore's pensieve, before he know exactly how fanatical a DE she was), describing her as beautiful with "heavy-lidded eyes." This is the most intriguing physical characteristic in the series, IMO. It gives a physical/emotional/spiritual flaw reflected in her appearance, making her less than truly beautiful. >Hermione turns out to be pretty for a > while but doesn't care about physical appearance at all. my turn: Hermione, as far as I can tell, is always clean, well-groomed, and wears her uniform with the utmost attention to neatness. She polished up very nicely for the Yule Ball, but really, what was different? Only her dress robes and hair. Such superficial things does not contribute to overall beauty. And yes, I do think Hermione is beautiful, and not just "in her own way." I think the Hogwarts girls (Even the Slytherins, in thier constant attacks on Hermione's looks), for the most part, are in awe of Hermione and the way she doesn't care about hair or makeup or boys, gets good grades, and still has great skin :-). >And other > school girls who are goodlooking are usually unintelligent bordering > on being bimbettes. Once again: I assume you must be referring to Parvati Patil who tends to giggle, wear bangles, put butterflies in her hair, and like the color pink. Her unintelligent bimbo status is an assumption made by you (Legally Blonde comes to mind). As far as we know she's not a complete idiot; she seems to perform pretty well in class, and is in the DA (98% sure, no book with me) so her DADA skills have improved to NEWT level over the past year. I can think of about twenty Junior-high aged girls just like Parvati, including myself about five years ago. I thik it's also worth noting that Padma Patil, a girl with identical physical characteristics as Parvati, is in Ravenclaw, a house known for their smarts. > I think JKR perpetuates this silly notion that beauty and brains do > not reside together, that intelligent girls do not or should not care > about beauty or if we take the Bellatrix example, beauty might > actually be evil because it is used in power game. > Bye > spangb Last time, promise: I don't think she does any such thing. If anything, she shows that girls are different. If Hermione, Parvati, Lavender, or Hannah Abbot were all straight-A students with perfect fashion sense, I'd think something was amiss. As it is, I think it's a pretty good cross- section of fifteen-year-old girls. As for Bella, we see that her inner-darkness obscures her physical beauty. --sarcasticmuppet-- From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 10 18:06:24 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:06:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88389 > > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Marina wrote: > It's the first instant in OOP, but it's not the first in the > series. Look at her explanation of Ron's jealousy in GoF, and there > might be other instances I'm forgetting right now. Hermione *is* > more mature than both Harry and Ron (which wouldn't take much, > frankly), and she often notices emotional undercurrents that the > boys miss -- look at her response to Neville after Fake!Moody > demonstrates the Cruciatus curse in GoF. I think in some ways, > Hermione is taking over Dumbledore's role as Harry's guide in the > books, as Dumbledore becomes more remote and fallible. I think that Hermione is indeed intended to be not only Harry's guide, but also a character who functions to bring important points or insights about other characters to the readers' attention. And, it's the main reason I have a problem with Hermione. Yes, she's more mature in some ways than Harry and Ron. However, her role of interpreter of other character's internal emotional states seems beyond her life experience as a fifteen-year-old. It's one thing for her to try to explain Ron to Harry, or to give the boys a clue about girls. This makes sense to me in that she's dealing with her friends and contemporaries, with whom she's shared a lot of time and experiences. It's when JKR uses her to analyze the motivations and feelings of the adults around her that I feel a false note. This dialogue about Sirius is a case in point. While Hermione's interpretation may indeed be JKR's way of telling us the God's honest truth about what Sirius was feeling and how that affected his actions, she is much too emphatic and definitive about it. What experience does she have with people who have gone through anything near what Sirius' life has been like to truly develop an understanding of it? Yet, she is certain that he's being selfish, he's lonely, he was hoping Harry would be expelled and felt guilty about that, and also suffers mental confusion about whether Harry is Harry or James. And, I suppose we're meant to believe that without question because she's described as speaking "wisely." It doesn't occur to Hermione that maybe Sirius is keeping himself apart from the others precisely because he realizes that his mood is so surly that everyone else will be more comfortable if he's not around. Or that perhaps he's having difficulty adjusting to simply being around people, many of whom are complete strangers, after living for over a decade in isolation. She's convinced he had his hopes up that Harry would get expelled and come to live at Grimmauld Place. We're not shown any canon evidence for that. Harry, I think, was much more on target when he pointed out that Sirius would not give Harry a straight answer when Harry asked about that possiblity. I think that's because Sirius knew perfectly well that other arrangements would have been made for Harry, but didn't want to let Harry know that because it would have added to Harry's anxiety about the hearing. Again, Hermione's interpretations may be exactly on target. JKR may want someone in Harry's generation to play that part of information provider, as a parallel to how Dumbledore has been used, and Hermione would be the logical choice. It just makes her a little less "real" to me. Marianne From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 10 18:59:35 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:59:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88390 > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a > patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most > often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that > he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome > attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's > statement shed a new light on him? I get the sense that it's quite common. Which is sort of odd when you think about how the WW seems to want to go to great lengths to hide their society from Muggles. I don't know that I'd call Arthur condescending, although I can't think of another word. He's never deliberately condescending. I don't get the feeling that he thinks Muggles are beneath him or worthy of contempt. Which is exactly how I think Lucius Malfoy thinks. > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? I don't know that Arthur resents Malfoy for his money per se. Rather I think it's more that he resents that Malfoy uses his wealth and postion purely for his own self-interest. Plus, he probably knows or suspects Malfoy's DE background, and lack of punishment for potential pass misdeeds, so that would add to his resentment. > 5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to > believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could > Dumbledore know this for sure? He's omniscient, isn't he? ;-) > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that > she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? Maybe she's disassociating the Wormtail part of him, and simply remembers the long-lived rat. > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. > Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the > revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter > affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting > to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. > Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with > Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? Molly seems to put Fred and George into a different category from her other children. It's as if they somehow broke out of what she wanted as the acceptable path to adulthood, which her other kids have followed, and she realizes somehow that they run on a parallel track. They're part of the family, yet different. Does that make any sense? I think there may be something to the Ron/Percy idea. I don't think Molly is trying to recreate Percy, but rather, sees Ron as another chance for accomplishment. And, maybe as a balm to the pain Percy has caused her. > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? I can't honestly think of examples of why Dumbledore would think Ron was more of a leader than any of the other boys. Of all of them, Neville seems to be the one who has shown he can act independently for the right reasons, even if they are not the popular reasons. But, making Ron prefect has more dramatic potential in the Trio interaction. > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does > Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? Both, I think. Molly never recognizes Fred and George for their peculiar talents and I think that bothers them a bit. It's as if she's telling them that they're not as good as her other kids. I also think that Fred and George are also telling Ron, in their own way, that they are not at all intimidated by his badge and they have no intentions of changing their behavior for him. > 12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's badge, > and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of emotional > maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of that > kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his > grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this > situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something > to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly being > in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising > this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during > OOP? This situation happens when Harry is still relatively protected. It's the lull before the start of school, where his life gets increasingly complicated. He's not yet dealing with all of the things that will shortly be on his plate. And, he's just successfully gotten through the hearing. So, his biggest immediate worry was gone. I think Harry was able to think things though clearly at this juncture, and this kind of introspection became more and more difficult to deal with as the school year went on. > 13. Sirius tells us that James wasn't a prefect, and yet we know from > PS/SS that he was Head Boy. Several suggestions have been made > in the attempt to resolve this paradox, among them the claim that > this is a FLINT, the suggestion that a HB isn't necessarily selected > from among the prefects, and the suggestion that Lupin was > stripped of his prefect's badge, which was given to James. Which, > if any, do you think is true? What do you think this bodes for Harry's > chances of being made Head Boy? Well, if Dumbledore felt Harry had too much on his plate to be Prefect, why would that change? Of course, if Dumbledore buys the farm in Book 6, I suppose the next Headmaster (or Headmistress) could appoint Harry. > 14. Why does Moody show Harry the photograph of the Order, and > why does he think Harry would be interested in the picture of his > parents? Is he unaware of the reaction Harry might have to seeing > his parents with Pettigrew, or is he purposefully trying to provoke > that reaction? Is Moody unaware that Harry does have pictures of > his parents, and perhaps thinks that this is the first time Harry has > seen a photograph of them? Why would Moody necessarily know that Harry had pictures, unless he was one of the people Hagrid contacted to get picture for Harry's album? I don't think he had ulterior motives for showing Harry the picture; he's just an odd duck and didn't see the creepiness of pointing out the manner of death of so many of those people to Harry. > 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the > original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown > people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? > Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? Perhaps Moody's roll-call of the dead is merely foreshadowing of a roll-call that will eventually take place with the existing members of the Order. > 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained > her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so > ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told > about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's > woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the > coming war? I think she's regained her composure. I don't know why she is ashamed of her fear, unless she believes that Order members are supposed to be fearless under all circumstances, which cannot possibly be true. Maybe she's never seen any of the others show fear and so feels like she's not as brave as others. She's actually braver than she thinks. She's entering this battle knowing full well that the odds aret she's going to lose at least one of her family in the coming battle. Yet that doesn't make her quit. I'm not sure of the stress thing. She certainly seems strung out the first few times we see her. I wonder if she might be the unwitting traitor in the future. If she was asked for information in exchange for keeping one of her kids safe (and what a horrible position that would be!), what would she do? I can't yet answer that one. Marianne From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 19:08:28 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:08:28 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: <000201c3d798$9364e650$4e60bf44@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88391 > Iggy de-cloaking for a second: > 1: Considering the intricacy of the entrance to the chamber, both in the books and in the movie, I can't see that Slytherin himself was the one who built it... it was more likely that he hired some goblins to build it in secret while the school itself was constructed. (And then he added the magical aspects later... like needing to speak Parseltongue to open the chamber.) Erin: Intricacy? Come on, it's just a big tunnel you slide down. Why couldn't he have built the whole thing with magic, come to that? He's specifically said to have built the chamber himself, not hired a bunch of goblins to do it. And if he had, wouldn't you think there'd be some legend of him slaughtering the goblins afterwards to keep his secret? (Whether he actually did or not, he's got such a nasty reputation that it would add to the legend, and surely someone would have thought of putting it in there over the years.) At the very least, he would probably have used a memory charm on them afterwards. I just don't think Slytherin would have trusted goblins enough to have them work on his extremely secret chamber, especially considering all the goblin rebellions that took place back then. Iggy: > 2: While goblins might keep something secret from people who don't > employ them, I can't really see them as the type to not gossip among > themselves. > 3: Bill worked for the goblins at Gringotts for years as a curse > breaker... He probably overheard them mentioning it at some point. > Another possibility is that, since the Egyptians are famous for secret passages and hidden rooms, the chamber was probably accidentally brought up by one of the goblins in a conversation with them. Erin: Ok, 2 and 3 are based on 1, and since I don't accept that there were any goblins involved in the first place, I'm afraid I can't buy 2 and 3. Iggy: > 4: You mention that the only ones who know about the chamber in Harry's time were the Slytherins... but Bill, technically, isn't from Harry's time. He left the school *years* before Harry ever got there. It's more appropriate to say that he's from the generation between Harry, and Arthur & Molly. (Especially when you consider how slowly people seem to age in the WW...) Erin: You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. Considering how slowly people age in the WW would actually make it *more* likely that Bill would be percieved as part of Harry's generation. Fourteen years or so would seem like a lot smaller age gap to a 150-year-old than to, say, a 75- year-old. But even in terms of muggle generations, Bill and Harry could easily be in the same one. A generation is either 20 or 25 years, depending on who you listen to. Bill and Harry cannot be that far apart, since Ginny can remember Bill being in school. Iggy: He could have heard about it as a "residual urban > legend" that died off by the time Harry got there. > > 5: Bill MAY have heard it from Arthur and Molly at some point, since the original opening of the chamber, IIRC, happened around the time that the parents were going to school. Erin: I doubt the residual urban legend thing simply because it was actually so well covered up. Not even many students in Hagrid and Tom Riddle's time knew what was really going on. And also I doubt it because of the *way* Ron recalled the memory. He didn't seem to have attached any negative conotations to it when he first recalled it. Just remembered that there was a secret chamber. That makes me believe that Bill had told Ron the story to Ron in a rather different way than Ron might have heard it from someone who *didn't* sympathize with Slytherin. And Molly and Arthur? That depends on what timeline you accept. As of OoP, I don't believe we have a canon age for either of them. And seeing as how they were dating in school, I'm one of those who sees them as getting married and having kids right after school, not waiting 20 years like the timeline that has them at school with Hagrid would require. Iggy: > 6: If the only people who knew about the chamber in Harry's time were the Slytherins... why bother to ask the teachers about it? And how would they know? (Oh, wait... all the teachers are former Slytherins, no matter what house they're associated with... right? *grin*) Erin: All right, all right, so I should have said the only students. I give on that one. I imagine teachers are given some information about the school that no one else has access to, though. Good to see you on the main list, Iggy. Erin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 10 20:39:18 2004 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:39:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88392 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > I think that Hermione is indeed intended to be not only Harry's > guide, but also a character who functions to bring important points > or insights about other characters to the readers' attention. And, > it's the main reason I have a problem with Hermione. her role of > interpreter of other character's internal emotional states seems > beyond her life experience as a fifteen-year-old. > This dialogue about Sirius is a case in point. While Hermione's > interpretation may indeed be JKR's way of telling us the God's honest > truth about what Sirius was feeling and how that affected his > actions, she is much too emphatic and definitive about it. What > experience does she have with people who have gone through anything > near what Sirius' life has been like to truly develop an > understanding of it? Yes, I see what you mean. It didn't bother me so much, because, frankly, it never occured to me for even a second that Hermione might be right in this instance. As you say, she has no meaningful frame of reference from which to judge Sirius' mental state. I think it's telling that the only other person who thinks Sirius is confusing Harry with James is Molly Weasley, who doesn't know him, either, and doesn't even particularly like him. Nothing Sirius actually does or says indicates any confusion. However, I think it's perfectly in character for her to be wrong with complete conviction, and I also think it's in character for Harry to accept what she says as the truth, since he's used to Hermione being the voice of reason and insight in most things. And when it comes to dealing with their peers at Hogwarts -- Ron, Cho, Neville -- Hermione is pretty reliable. But she doesn't fully grasp the complexities of the adult world, either. I think it's no coincidence that JKR surrounds Harry with guiding figures -- Dumbledore, Hermione, Sirius himself, Remus -- who are wise in some things, but are also capable of being wrong about some very important things. The process of growing up includes learning when to trust others for advice and when to go purely with one's own judgement, and to know which person to trust in which instance. Harry spends most of OOP being wrong about this. Hopefully, by the end of book 7, he'll get the hang of it. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 20:59:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:59:45 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as heirs of Slytherin? Was: Why put the entrance to the Cos in a gi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Carol: > > They [the Weasleys] can't be heirs of Slytherin because Tom Riddle > was the last descendant (through his muggle-born mother). Also, as > you say, the Weasleys are purebloods. If they were descended from > Salazar Slytherin through another branch of the Slytherin family that > didn't intermarry with Muggles, that descent would be reflected in > their genealogical records and known to all the pureblood families. > Dumbledore would know it as well. Since he doesn't have any such > information, we can safely assume that Voldemort is the last of the > Slytherin line. > > Berit replies: > > You're basing this on the assumption that that the Heir of Slytherin > title is inherited from parent to child in a straight line. Canon- > wise we don't know exactly how the title is inherited, do we? Maybe > it hasn't only got to do with (direct) blood lineage? Also, there > could be several branches of Slytherin descendants all distantly > related to him, so even if Voldemort is the present heir, it doesn't > have to rule out other relatives should Voldie die. By the way; I > don't believe the Weasleys will turn out as heirs of Slytherin, but > we can't really rule that out based on the fact that we don't know > how the title is inherited. > > I have a theory someone else other than Voldie is or is going to be > the heir of Slytherin, ether by blood lineage or by "accident" or > possibly both (Voldemort made him his /equal/ when trying to kill > him...). Well, I just think that inheriting the heir of Slytherin > title might not be just a simple matter of direct lineage. > > Sorry; don't have the books with me, but can't recall Tom Riddle's > mom being muggle-born? Wasn't she a pure-blooded witch? His father > was muggleborn though (and a muggle). > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Oops. You're right. Witch mother, muggle father. But the rest of the argument still holds, IMO. In fact, if his mother was a pureblood, her descent from Salazar Slytherin would also be well-known among the purebloods, who go in for genealogy if only to determine who is a suitable marriage partner. And Dumbledore (presumably a pureblood himself) states unconditionally that Tom Riddle is the last descendant of Slytherin. So unless he's wrong, the Weasleys can't be heirs of Slytherin, and if Harry is, it's only via the transferred powers of Voldemort. But note that *he* didn't unlock the Chamber of Secrets. He was able to open it only because Diary!Tom had already unlocked it using Ginny's body. Carol From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 21:15:46 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:46 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang, Hiding, History, and Triwizard (was Scandinavia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: Ba said: [snipped by Sea Change] "Krum" is that name of an early Bulgarian king known for his wisdom and benevolence. Rarely are names in the canon random... Fran said: Also, didn't Krum play on the Bulgarian National Quidditch team?... The Sergeant Majorette (who became a Viktor Krum fan due to her addiction to Balkan folk music) says Wisdom and benevolence?? Not hardly, except in the sense that Vlad Dracula is known as a Romanian patriot. Khan Krum the Terrible is known as the founder of the Bulgarian nation, but is chiefly famous for having the skull of an enemy silver plated and using it as a goblet to drink human blood. To be fair, though, it seems that having some sort of grotesque cruelty attached to your legend was a political imperative back then in that area of the world. --JDR From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 15:01:39 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:01:39 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88395 > *snip* > Erin: > You mentioned your belief that there will be a spy in the Order, and I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe that it is CoS that gives us our first clue as to the spy will be. *snip* But later in the book we learn that evidence of the chamber has been covered up for the last fifty years. The only people who know of the legend in Harry's time are Slytherins. So how did Bill find this information out? He must have been hanging around the Slytherins, yes? *snip* >>> The Slytherins are not the only ones who know anything about the COS. Hermione says that all the copies of "Hogwarts a History" have been taken out and she left her copy at home. She says that she wants it to read up on the legend of the COS. So really anyone could read about it. "tlpbupu" From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 16:10:45 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:10:45 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione and Neville? :) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88396 I am new here and if this has already been discussed, I am sorry. There are so many posts here it is hard to keep them all straight! I know that there are a lot of people who believe in the Hermione/Harry or the Hermione/Ron theories, but I think that there is a good possiblility of Hermione/Neville. I know that at first it seems out there, but there is evidence that Neville likes Hermione and I think that as Neville gains confidence and comes into his own that Hermione will take notice. I mean look at the facts 1. Hermione is always helping Neville with schoolwork, especially in Potions. I know that she is trying to help a friend and problaby feels sorry for Neville. 2. Neville did ask Hermione to the Yule Ball, even though she turned him down. She may have started to realize that Neville sees her as more of a friend and that may have got her thinking about Neville. 3. When she meat Neville at St. Mungos she realized that there is more to Neville and what kind of life he has had than she ever realized. Many times when you learn to sympathise with someone you get a new appreciation for them. 4. Remember that it was Neville who carried Hermione around the Dept. of Mysteries when she was hurt and she will problaby not soon forget that he was the one looking out for her. I know that there are other instances that I am forgetting and that there will be a LOT of people who disagree with me :) but this is just MO. Also, keep in mind that JKR does not like to just present us with the obvious and the Harry or Ron scenerios are just to obvious for me. Tracy From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 18:10:11 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:10:11 -0000 Subject: Odd Thought... was...Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88397 Art "artcase" wrote: > Why was Tom Riddle in the girl's bathroom in the first place???? Didn't Tom Riddle state that it had taken him 5 (or however many years) to discover the entrance to the chamber? Perhaps he studied it in books etc., etc. Why did he have to just come across it. Perhaps it was encoded in the text of the forbidden section. Just a thought. Andrew From oppen at mycns.net Sat Jan 10 21:34:16 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:34:16 -0600 Subject: Kwikspell courses Message-ID: <052501c3d7c1$80889300$90570043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 88398 My own theory about Kwikspell is that it exists not so much to swindle money out of Squibs (how common ARE squibs, anyway? If they're really really rare, then wouldn't swindling them and only them be kind of a waste of time?) as a source of "refresher courses" for wizards and witches who need them. Say, Molly Weasley gets b-o-r-e-d at home with all her children gone (All this peace and quiet! What am I to do? I don't know what to do! The walls are closing in! AUGH!) and she goes out looking for a job. Even though she's apparently skilled enough in "housewifely" magic, she might find that a refresher course in stuff that she _hadn't_ been doing every day for the last twenty years, or since she left Hogwarts, would be Just The Ticket to qualifying her for a better job. --Eric, who keeps up his foreign languages with diligent practice, but who couldn't handle even simple Algebra if they threatened him with the firing squad. "Do your worst! I'll die a martyr to the cause of Mathematical Ignorance! Long live counting on one's fingers!" From tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 21:31:54 2004 From: tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com (tiger_queen429) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:31:54 -0000 Subject: House Qualities (Was: Re: Slytherin Purebloods?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88399 > Ali argues: > > > Besides, the kids have already shown that, when they so desire, > they are > > able to reach across houses to form a united front against their > foes. > > Umbridge & the DA comes to mind. I think they'll be fine > regardless of the > > house system. > Meri again: >> Yes, the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and > Ravenclaws have shown that they can unite against their foes, but > the Slytherins are excluded from that union. Now admitedly the > Slytheri1ns were the Inquisitorial Squad that the DA found them up > against and many of the Slytherin's families appear to be DEs, Me: Notice how no Slytherins are invited to join the DA, after Herminone selects most of the people to join the DA. At the same time no member of Hufflepuff, Gryffindor, or Ravenclaw joined the IS. at the end of OoP, IMO only the Slytherins have gems, which goes not show that they do not have sympathy for a house that is not their own. Meri: but > there should be, IMHO, at least an attempt to make the whole of the > four houses unified. We have seen before the willingness of the > other three houses to be very anti-Slytherin, and again IMHO, this > is the divisiveness that must be stopped. Assuming that just because > someone is sorted into Slytherin house makes them evil is too one- > sided for JKR, and I personally hope that she does explore more both > the good and bad qualities of all the houses. Afer all, Harry could > have easily been a Slytherin, and it was a Ravenclaw (Marietta > Edgecombe) who betrayed the DA to Umbridge. > Meri (who would be sorted into Hufflepuff should she ever get > accepted to Hogwarts) Me: I agree that the house system needs revision. From the fall of Slytherin(well in Hogwarts anyways), it seems that there has been some biased unity in Hogwarts. The Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws and Gryffindors all seem to have some house unity. Maybe this comes from Harry's prespective, but the only time that relations were strained between these three houses was during GoF. Not before a qudditch match or about the house Cup. But there is also a lack of huge amounts of animosity between slytherin and Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw (which may also come from Harry's prespective). Before Harry comes to Hogwarts, its said that Griffindor has not has not one the House Cup since the days of Charlie Weasley. During this time, it is Slytherin which has won the House Cup, not Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are both celebrating the downfall of Slytherin, not being upset that another house not their own has won the much coveted house cup. Harry and Ron both show no signs of wanting House unity when Ron says that he won't "get matey with the Slytherins"( i don't have my book with me now). Hermione does the same with her baised selection for the DA (which I admit could come from fears that someone in the same house as Draco might be dangerous if he saw that person(s) leave for illegal meetings). In my opinion nothing has changed since Slytherin left Hogwarts: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are united, but Slytherin is left in the cold. Maybe this is the cause for so many evil Slytherin (I know that not all of them are). Slytherin's departure from Hogwarts would have left a bitter taste in the mouths of the remaining three teachers that could have very well be passed down through the generations. tigerqueen From hermione978 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 18:21:56 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:21:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040110182156.64026.qmail@web21506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88400 spang_b wrote: > I was stuck by something small and may be insignificant but it > does bear upon this sexism issue. I have noticed that none of > the main female characters is desribed as beautiful. WHAT is beauty anyway? Beautiful is different things to different people. My husband was not exactly the "greek godly stud" girls dream about when we were married but I was very attracted to him, despite his weight issues, when we first met. He is a wonderful person who loves unconditionally, sacrificially and cares for me in a way that no fairy tale princess could realistically get..and his weight is not an issue because he lost it all... To me he is a beautiful person inside and out. I think society has subconsciencely dreamed up these charactersitics of beautiful or handsome for us and without realizing it, many people buy into it. It is shallow to do so. There are alot of what appear to be "unattractive" people in the world that are beautiful when you get to know them. It is the same with the Harry Potter characters, they may not be the beauty queens we would picture them as for some of them, but they are intelligent, loyal people who love their friends and family and are very likeable. That is all that matters, not how many beauty pageants they could win or if they are good enough to be on the cover of a magazine. Remember.. those types of people on magazines and such are air brushed and look just as horrid as we do in the morning when they wake up wrinkled and dissheveled from the night before. Kelly From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 21:37:35 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:37:35 -0000 Subject: Odd Thought... was...Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "artcase" wrote: > Why was Tom Riddle in the girl's bathroom in the first place???? > > Art bboy_mn: First, to the effectiveness and logic of putting the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets in a girl's bathroom. It worked didn't it? Nearly a thousand years time and a long succession of Hogwart's headmasters were unable to find it. If I were searching for a secret chamber in a large castle, I think it would be a long time before it occurred to me to look in the girl's bathroom. So, in the end, it was a pretty wise choice. Regarding the bathroom itself, others have speculated the the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets has something like an 'adaptive' charm on it. Regardless of how the room was changed, the entrance would equally change to conform to the new room, and adapt the gateway to the entrance to blend into the room. If the room were just a bare room used for storage, then maybe one stone along one wall would have a small snake scratched on it to mark the entrance. When it was converted to a bathroom, then a wall sink with a marked water tap became more appopriate. Bathrooms in general; bathrooms aren't a new invention, they have been around in many cultures for many many centuries. Ancient Rome and Greece had pumbing that provided running water for personal use as well as public fountains, and yes indeed, for toilets. Some key components of bathrooms like porcelain and running water are ancient technologies. The one thing we see (or don't see, but hear about) in the HP series that is a relatively modern invention, is the 'U' bend (or 'S' bend). Early toilets in the USA didn't have this, as a result the 'cupboard under the staisr' frequently blew up when methane gas leaked into the house. Explosions usually triggered by gas lights, candles, or cigarettes. The 'U' or 'S' bend under your sink (and toilet) prevents this methane gas from entering your home. That could be a conversion problem for modern plumbers, but for magic folk, a quick wave of your wand and the pipe suddenly has a 'U' bend; not a problem. Tom Riddle???? Yes, a very interesting question, 'How did Tom manage to find the entrance to the Chamber when a long succession of Hogwarts headmasters couldn't?'. It seems that Tom Riddle did a great deal of detailed research on the Chamber and Salazar Slytherin (this is clear from the books), it's possible that is was in this detailed research that he discovered, or possibly imagined, that he was related to Slytherin. An event which would only serve to increase his interest in finding the Chamber. At some point, one could speculate, Tom reasoned that since Slytherin had the unique characteristic of being able to talk to snakes, that Parseltongue might be the key. Language, words, phrases, incantations, as well as secret passwords seem to be the mainstay of the wizard world; Tom Riddle could logically reason that Slytherin would use a password that only he with his specific talent could produce. A password that no other wizard past, present, or future could concieve, except a wizard who shared Slytherin's special gift. And just by chance, as the lone outcast oddball Tom Riddle wandered the woods alone, in his days as a child, Tom came across a snake that by some unimaginable process could talk to him, and even more amazing, that he, Tom Riddle, could talk back. Putting all the pieces together, the oddball Tom Riddle would wander the halls of Hogwarts softly hissing and spitting, or at least, that's what it seemed to the outside observer. In reality he was wandering the halls speaking Parsletongue saying, 'Chamber of Secrets of Salazar Slythering reveal yourself to me!'. One day while wandering past the girls bathroom, he heard a noise inside in response to his call for the Chamber to reveal itself. Bada-Bing Bada-Boom... he found the Chamber. Of course, none of this can ever be more than speculation since the books don't give us enough information to draw reasonable conclusions. Just a thought. bboy_mn From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 19:15:49 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:15:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88402 > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of > > his older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a > > better choice? Marina: > Actually, I think the whole prefect storyline was kind > of wasted in the book. Most of Ron's character development came > from his role as a Quidditch player, not from his role of prefect. > Of course, if he hadn't made prefect, he wouldn't have had a broom > to get on the Quidditch team with, so perhaps that was its only > purpose. Andrew says There is something else floating around the message boards that makes a connection to this. It is mixed up in Die, Ron, Die theories and theories of Harry and Ron predicting their futures when Harry says something along the lines of (I do not have my book with me): you will have great suffering, but be very happy: to Ron while looking at his tea leaves. Post 88373 by Cora can give an introduction. Perhaps JKR chose Ron not to make Harry jealous but to promote Ron's 'power'. Ron will be valuable to Harry in the series, and I can definitely see Ron as Head Boy. JKR has been showing subtle hints throughout the book, especially in the chess match in SS/PS, that Ron will enter into a leading roll as Knight/King (post 88276). I will find another post pertaining to this. They all seem to correspond. Just a thought Andrew From meera_firana at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 10 20:34:01 2004 From: meera_firana at yahoo.co.uk (meera_firana) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:34:01 -0000 Subject: Flaw Between Prisoner of Azkaban (POA) and Order of the Phoenix (OOP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88403 James E. Bennett wrote: >>> In POA Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are both worried about Black trying to find and kill Harry. But if they had been in the OOP any length of time they would have know about Black and who's side he was on. I can find no reason why they wouldn't have known. Maybe I'm reading too much into it or I've over looked something in a later book that explained it but I'm looking for inputs into this. >>> The answer is easy.. Everyone thought Black is a traitor, until the end of POA. Even then, only Dumbledore, Lupin and the trio knew he was innocent. Back in the time when Voldemort was in power, everyone trusted Sirius. They all thought he was on the good side. Well, he was, but after the blasted pipe incident they changed their minds. So, even if Mr and Mrs Weasley were in the OOP back then, they'd have believed Black was on the good side. Nobody would've known, remember? As Black told the trio in GoF, when they met him in the cave near Hogsmeade, at that time you don't know whom to trust. As Black was in OOP, of course everyone trusted him. Look at Pettigrew, he was with Voldemort for some time before the death of James and Lily. Did people trust him? Yes. Was he a traitor? Yes. I'm sure Dumbledore would've told everyone about Black's innocence after he started the OOP again. But of course, we wouldn't know how and when, because the story is in Harry's point of view, and it's not too important to know when. We could assume it ourselves. Ron, Hermione and Lupin could testify with the absence of Harry that Black had never hurt Harry, always been there for him, and most importantly, how they believe his innocence. As the members of OOP trusted Dumbledore, of course they'll believe (and they want to believe) that Black is innocent. I hope that explains it to you. -Meera From meera_firana at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 10 20:40:51 2004 From: meera_firana at yahoo.co.uk (meera_firana) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:40:51 -0000 Subject: Will Harry die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88404 My boyfriend and I has discussed about this, and he didn't agree with me that Harry will die. His reason - it would upset the kids who read the story, as we know how much they love Harry Potter. But then, Rowling "killed" Black, and we all know how upsetting it was. My reason for saying this is there's going to be no more Harry Potter books after this. She'll never never write anything about Harry anymore, and she's very sure about it. Of course, if Harry stays alive, there'd be a lot of things to talk about after that. How will he die? Maybe he kills Voldemort, and then survived for a while with a lot of injuries, and then die. I don't know....it's just my speculation. He might live happily ever after. I hope Rowling can write about the Marauders next.. -Meera From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sat Jan 10 21:44:40 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:44:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: =?ISO-8859-1?B?oEhlcm1pb25lIGFuZCBOZXZpbGxlPyA6KQ==?= Message-ID: <4E7C5DC2.3FCFA184.4B073798@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88405 In a message dated 1/10/2004 11:10:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, "tlpbupu" writes: > 1. Hermione is always helping Neville with schoolwork, especially >in Potions. I know that she is trying to help a friend and problaby >feels sorry for Neville. I've found that in high school, people always want to get help on their schoolwork from someone they like... I always asked Andy Mulkerin to check my papers...wicked cool kid he was *sigh*. But, back to HP -- I've seen it happen before. People develop crushes on those who help them with stuff like that. Happens quite often. > 2. Neville did ask Hermione to the Yule Ball, even though she >turned him down. She may have started to realize that Neville sees >her as more of a friend and that may have got her thinking about >Neville. Just because it got her thinking about Neville doesn't mean that she'll *like* him like him. I always *did* think Neville liked Hermione, but I don't really think about it because I'm not really into all the SHIPs and stuff... > 4. Remember that it was Neville who carried Hermione around the >Dept. of Mysteries when she was hurt and she will problaby not soon >forget that he was the one looking out for her. Oy, that is a good one... She might feel a little indebted to him... I can see that. I didn't even remember that part. Neville's in the background of my mind...(there's no room in the front with Severus *g*) >I know that there are other instances that I am forgetting and that >there will be a LOT of people who disagree with me :) Oh! Like when she saved his toad! I don't remember what book it was, but Severus said that he was going to feed Neville's Shrinking Solution to Trevor, and Hermione helped him fix it so Trevor didn't die! She saved his beloved pet...he'll remember that. I mean, I like it. I like it more than Hermione/Ron or Hermione/Harry. But, it's kinda...well...sappy. It's the stuff Lifetime movies are made of (Cradle of Conspiracy is on Lifetime right now lol). Oryomai --Who talked about Neville in her English midterm -- I had to write an essay about minor characters in a series and I mentioned Neville in my opening! From amani at charter.net Sat Jan 10 22:04:12 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:04:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) References: Message-ID: <011301c3d7c5$aeee7c60$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88406 Laurence: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > Stereotypes- > > Stereotypes exist because they are real. Girls DO giggle too much > (ask any guy), it IS in a woman nature to be nurturing and caregiving. Laurence: No, that is more than a stereotype, that a preconceived idea. Steve: > It IS in the nature of men to be hunters and adventures. Laurence: No, it was the case 1000 years ago, when you were a woman with 10 kids, exhausted by 15 pregnancies; of course you let the guys go hunting. but, for Merlin's sake, in 2004 (and already in 1990), first, you nearly choose if and when you want children, second, you don't need to go hunting to eat. And we don't see anything against that for the WW. Taryn: But it's very important to note that we still have instinctive, subconscious residue to this. There's a whole field about our psychology today that results from our species' history. The whole effect wasn't just erased from our minds. Back in hunting-gathering times, men were the natural hunters, being stronger, and this mindset survives today because of it. I remember watching a video on evolution done by PBS talking about how humans were still attracted to certain physical characteristics that were signs of strength, resilience, high fertility, etc. (Wonderfully interesting video series, too.) So it just didn't dissipate when men didn't need to go hunting anymore. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 22:08:05 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:08:05 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang, Hiding, History, and Triwizard (was Scandinavia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: Sea Change: > I am a Californian and am used to the high mountains in the Sierras. > When I learned that the highest mountain in the UK was less than 4000 > feet, it really messed with my head because I was raised to think of > those that are that height nearby as merely foothills. Maybe > Durmstrang is 'mountainous' only from a Unitedkingdomese point of view? Geoff: Not true I fear. Ben Nevis, the highest mountain on the UK mainland is 4406 feet and there are a handful of others in the Cairngorms. Just remember that height is relative. we are a fairly small island and so the mountains seem big. When, like me, you've slogged to the top of the highest peak in England (Scafell Pike 3210 feet) or enjoyed the view from Wales' highest (Snowdon - 3559 feet), a mountain's a mountain for a' that. And if you think we're off your Californian scale, take a look at the Low Countries.... Anyway, many of our mountains are very remote - look at the discussion we had on the whereabouts of Hogwarts; start from about message 83906 for a long thread on the matter. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 22:13:20 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:13:20 -0000 Subject: Is Mark Evans being protected by Mrs. Figgs and Mundungus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88408 Many fans believe that Mark Evans will probably begin Hogwarts in book 6. If this is true... Why does Mark Evans live in the same town as Harry? Is it just a coincidence that this character lives in the same town as Petunia's family? (A magical child with the last name of Evans-- the maiden name of Lily and Petunia?) Is this child a distant relative of Petunia or Lily? Did Petunia have two children? One with magical powers that she gave up? Is this why she puts up with Harry because DD is protecting her other child? (If Dumbledore is protecting Mark it would make sense that DD would want both children living in the same area so that Mrs. Figgs and Mundungus could keep an eye on both.) Is this child Snape's son in foster care (or perhaps Mark lives alone with his mother)? Is DD protecting this child for Snape? Is that why Snape can be trusted? Also, I wonder what month this child was born on? And is the prophecy really refering to three children (Harry, Neville, and Mark) when it says "born to those that have thrice defied him?" If the prophecy refers to three children Harry was marked literally (and emotionally), Neville was marked emotionally, and Mark...in name (HAHA)? From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 22:14:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:14:16 -0000 Subject: Dunderheads, Mrs. Figg, and the Hearing (was Chaper 8) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: Sea Change: > What's being missed IMO in most of this thread and its ancestors is > that getting 50 free-willed humans, each of which is important enough > to belong on any deliberating body, to actually meet for a special > session is like herding cats. Perhaps it seems this way to me because > I am foolish enough in RL to have belonged to several volunteer > non-profit boards. In my experience it is a difficult undertaking, > and never happens in an information vaccuum. Dumbledore couldn't have > been surprised by this meeting. Geoff: He wasn't. Harry had been advised way back at the time of the Dementor attack that the hearing was scheduled for 9 am on the 12th August. It was the moving of the hearing to 8 am in a different courtroom which caught Harry and Arthur Weasley wrong-footed. I have always suspected that Fudge did this deliberately in an attempt to frame Harry judging by his reaction when Dumbledore arrived. From hermione978 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 21:45:10 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:45:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: genealogy of Harry Potter: In-Reply-To: <000b01c3d75a$ab354790$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: <20040110214510.52926.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88410 Geoff: > I think the question of who can touch the prophecy refers to > the /initial/ picking up and not later. Voldemort has been thwarted > because he tried to get it via someone else; this failed because of > the protection so he lured Harry to the MoM for that purpose. He > could have got it himself but this would have confirmed that he had > returned. Yes, he did try to use Neville to get the prophecy, but if you re-read the last part of O of P CAREFULLY Dumbledore tells Harry that the prophecy could most likely be him, but maybe not which is where Neville Longbottom comes in. This is a definite clue and unexpected thing in JKR's writing. It is worth noting. Hermione978 From hermione978 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 21:55:58 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (Kelly Penn) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: SHIP: ?Hermione and Neville? :) In-Reply-To: <4E7C5DC2.3FCFA184.4B073798@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040110215558.70711.qmail@web21509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88411 Tracy writes: > 1. Hermione is always helping Neville with schoolwork, especially >in Potions. I know that she is trying to help a friend and problaby >feels sorry for Neville. > > 2. Neville did ask Hermione to the Yule Ball, even though she >turned him down. She may have started to realize that Neville sees >her as more of a friend and that may have got her thinking about >Neville. > > 3. When she met Neville at St. Mungos she realized that there is >more to Neville and what kind of life he has had than she ever >realized. Many times when you learn to sympathise with someone you >get a new appreciation for them. > > 4. Remember that it was Neville who carried Hermione around the >Dept. of Mysteries when she was hurt and she will problaby not soon >forget that he was the one looking out for her. > >I know that there are other instances that I am forgetting and that >there will be a LOT of people who disagree with me :) It could be nothing more than a friendship. I wouldn't read too much into it because she also accepted to be with VIKTOR KRUM who in book 5 she was still keeping contact with and writing and visiting. It was RON in book 4 that she told off about asking sooner and the ball. (It was about midway through the book when Harry got turned down by Cho, somewhere in there, don't have the book in front of me). After all, boys and girls can like each other as just friends. My best friend in fifth grade was a boy, it didn't mean we had a crush on each other. Hermione978 From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 10 22:29:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:29:16 -0000 Subject: Is Mark Evans being protected by Mrs. Figgs and Mundungus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: vmonte: > Many fans believe that Mark Evans will probably begin Hogwarts in > book 6. > If this is true... > Why does Mark Evans live in the same town as Harry? > Is it just a coincidence that this character lives in the same town > as Petunia's family? (A magical child with the last name of Evans-- > the maiden name of Lily and Petunia?) Is this child a distant > relative of Petunia or Lily? > Geoff: Can I point you in the direction of message 85255 where I put together a lot of the ideas about Mark Evans; this led to a longish thread on the subject. From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 11 00:23:16 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:23:16 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as heirs of Slytherin? Was: Why put the entrance to the Cos in a gi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88413 Carol wrote: And Dumbledore (presumably a pureblood himself) states unconditionally that Tom Riddle is the last descendant of Slytherin. So unless he's wrong, the Weasleys can't be heirs of Slytherin, and if Harry is, it's only via the transferred powers of Voldemort. Berit replies: Where old Dumbledore is concerned, one should take more notice of what he is not saying than what he is saying... :-) He rarely tells the whole truth; just ask Harry! So Dumbledore saying Voldemort is the last descendant of Slytherin could be just part of the picture. When did DD ever present the whole picture? He never has. I'm not saying he's lying; rather that he just chooses to hold back some (or lets say most) of the truth for the sake of the readers' suspense :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 00:25:40 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:25:40 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88414 Kneasy wrote: Have you considered that Snape is anti-Lupin because he was one of the gang that tormented him? That he sees Lupin being appointed DADA as rubbing salt in his wounds? That he may (would, most likely) have heard about the map from Filch, who confiscated it? Why else would he summon Lupin? He knows where and who it originated from. vmonte responds: Snape recognizes that the map belongs to Lupin's gang because he known their nicknames since they were all in high school. In the Snape pensieve chapter: James Potter and his gang are all calling themselves by their nicknames... From simigis at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 00:26:37 2004 From: simigis at yahoo.com (Antonia Simigis) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry's Privet Drive protection Message-ID: <20040111002637.61374.qmail@web20721.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88415 There is a quote in OotP that I find fascinating. It's in Chapter One, p. 5, and refers to when Uncle Vernon discovers Harry outside the window: "For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at his uncle's sausage-like fingers with his left hand, his right maintaining a grip on his raised wand. Then, as the pain in the top of Harry's head gave a particularly nasty throb, Uncle Vernon yelped and released Harry as though he had received an electric shock--some invisible force seemed to have surged through his nephew, making him impossible to hold." Note that Vernon is standing inside the house, but Harry is outside. Do people within the boundaries of Privet Drive who try to hurt Harry get zapped because of his mother's protection and Dumbledore's charm, or did Harry zap him unintentionally? He is holding his wand, after all. Any thoughts? Are there any other points in the canon when Harry is unintentionally protected like this (besides the first time, of course)? "Antonia" __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From kristin1778 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 01:26:13 2004 From: kristin1778 at yahoo.com (kristin1778) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:26:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88416 Marianne "kiricat2001" wrote: > > JKR may want someone in Harry's generation to play that part of information provider, as a parallel to how Dumbledore has been used, and Hermione would be the logical choice. It just makes her a little > less "real" to me. > > > Marianne > I think this is exactly what JKR intends with Hermione. Check out what she has to say about Hermione in the CoS DVD interview: "I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, she's handy." That's what's so frustrating about what both Dumbledore and Hermione have to say about Sirius in OotP, because I think it's JKR telling us how it really is. Only, I disagree with it. Kristin From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 03:13:56 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:13:56 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88417 Just a thought. We know that Minerva and DD were/are Transfiguration Professors. Do you think they may be playing other characters in the books? I also have a question: Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? Can transfiguration be used (like when drinking polyjuice)to impersonate another character (without being a metamorph)? Do you think any of the children (like Luna for example) are really Minerva, DD, or even Tonks for that matter? From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 03:26:43 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:26:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Privet Drive protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88418 simigis at yahoo.com quotes from canon: >"For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at >his uncle's sausage-like fingers with his left hand, >his right maintaining a grip on his raised wand. Then, >as the pain in the top of Harry's head gave a >particularly nasty throb, Uncle Vernon yelped and >released Harry as though he had received an electric >shock--some invisible force seemed to have surged >through his nephew, making him impossible to hold." >Note that Vernon is standing inside the house, but >Harry is outside. Do people within the boundaries of >Privet Drive who try to hurt Harry get zapped because >of his mother's protection and Dumbledore's charm, or >did Harry zap him unintentionally? He is holding his >wand, after all. I don't think it's the magical protection; I think Harry zapped him unintentionally. Magic will apparently protect almost any wizard given the opportunity (look at Neville's relatives dropping him out windows), and we've already seen Harry doing this sort of thing for most of his life before he even knew he was a wizard. Also note that Harry himself is now aware of this possibility and is trying to avoid accidentally doing magic during his confrontation with Dudley. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 04:46:45 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:46:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88419 >5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to >believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could >Dumbledore know this for sure? I doubt that Dumbledore knows anything for sure. I believe that his statement is based on his knowledge of Fudge and, in some part, the knowledge of how Voldemort worked before. I think that Dumbledore is trusting in the fact that Voldemort was so intent on his one plan that he neglected any other avenues, including placing Fudge under his control. But I also get the impression from reading the whole passage that Dumbledore hardly trusts Fudge. Like before, there's a bit of doubt with every person now. >8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that >she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? Do we ever know that she was told Scabbers' true identity? Until the end of GoF she didn't know about Sirius, so why would she know about Scabbers? I think that detail was overlooked by everybody. >9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire >for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a >prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's >everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. >Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the >revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter >affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting >to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. >Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with >Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in >Ron? Well, I don't see Mrs. Weasley as bribing Ron, as he's alreay gotten the badge at that point. However, she does seem to forget about Fred and George. Why that is... well, I'm inclined to believe that like any mother, she sees where her twins are headed, and more importantly, is trying very hard to not see it. She wants to believe that all her boys are perfect. After all, she says "everyone" but Ginny can hardly be included in that statement. She seems to be grasping at straws during a very difficult time, and at the same time forget about the fact that two of her sons are not going in the direction she wants. So like any devoted mother might, she chooses to see just the good, and momentarily "forgets" about Fred and George. >12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's badge, >and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of emotional >maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of >that >kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his >grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this >situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something >to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly >being >in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising >this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during >OOP? Like any teen, he has moments of clarity. It's not the situation, but rather just good timing. I'm sure that his realization that he perceives Ron as being in his shadow helped him to realize that he was being childish. Harry also demonstrates some realizations that he has acted like a child towards the end. He places his friends into very serious danger, and realizes it fully. Granted, he can't do anything about it by then, but the fact that he can see it is a hugs step. Most adults can't admit they've madea mistake. It takes even more maturity for a teenager to do so. >13. Sirius tells us that James wasn't a prefect, and yet we know from >PS/SS that he was Head Boy. Several suggestions have been made >in the attempt to resolve this paradox, among them the claim that >this is a FLINT, the suggestion that a HB isn't necessarily selected >from among the prefects, and the suggestion that Lupin was >stripped of his prefect's badge, which was given to James. Which, >if any, do you think is true? What do you think this bodes for >Harry's >chances of being made Head Boy? We've never had any idea what the rules were for selecting prefects or the Head Boy/Girl. It's kind of hard to say something is incorrect if you don't know the rules. Do I think the Head Boy is likely to come from a prefect? Sure, since they've already demonstrated the ability required. Do they have to? I doubt it. Like any system, there are always exceptions. I don't think that Lupin had his badge stripped from him. I think that James, as a person, grew over the last few years. After all, the person we see in Snape's memory and the person who showed so much courage in standing up to Voldemort are not the same. James' actions toward Snape are childish and insecure. We're missing a crucial piece in the puzzle still, and I think it will explain a lot about James. Could Harry be Head Boy? Sure, why not? But I think that JKR has much greater things in store for Harry. >17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained >her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so >ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told >about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's >woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the >coming war? Again, there's a big piece here that we're missing. Obviously, any mother's greatest fear is probably losing any of her children. Why she doesn't want Arthur to know may simply be embarressment. Can she handle the stress of war? Well she has once already, but I think that the Weasley family has already suffered a lot, and I'm sure that has something to do with the fear the Molly presents. Just some thoughts, though I apologize if there seems to be some inconsistency, as I'm rather tired... Cheers, Christy From tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 02:17:58 2004 From: tsuki_no_miko at hotmail.com (Ali) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry die? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88420 Meera: > My boyfriend and I has discussed about this, and he didn't agree > with me that Harry will die. His reason - it would upset the kids > who read the story, as we know how much they love Harry Potter. > > But then, Rowling "killed" Black, and we all know how upsetting it > was. Ali: First, I think comparing killing off Black and killing off Harry is unfair. To steal a phrase, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Black is an important, though still minor, character. Harry is...well, it is the Harry Potter series. Second, I've gotten the sense that JKR's growth as a writer is maturing with Harry. Well, it's either that or she just didn't let us onto her talents in the initial books. In either case, I think that her desire to challenge her writing abilities won't let her kill Harry. It's easier to write a sad ending; a happy ending is more difficult to pull off. Third, even disregarding everything else, JKR has grown attached to Harry, possibly more than her fans. I doubt she'll kill him off. Meera: > My reason for saying this is there's going to be no more Harry > Potter books after this. She'll never never write anything about > Harry anymore, and she's very sure about it. Of course, if Harry > stays alive, there'd be a lot of things to talk about after that. Naive as this may seem, I think it's JKR's perrogative to change her mind so she could change her mind about not writing anything else about Harry. In any case, why is it that she can't end the HP series with Harry alive? There's always going to be things to talk about, questions to be answered, but so what? There's still going to be questions to be answered if Harry dies. Just because he dies does not mean there's an instantaneous elimination of all the questions and loose ends. I'm not entirely convinced one way or another. Harry may or may not die, and I'll still end up surprised. However, I think it's more likely that Harry won't die. Pure speculation on my part, I realize, but JKR seems too attached to Harry to kill him off. ~Ali From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Sun Jan 11 06:19:37 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:19:37 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: <20040110182156.64026.qmail@web21506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88421 Hi, Yeah, beauty can be inside, but I was specifically referring to, physical beauty, attractiveness. I agree with what you said but that doesn't detract from what I said. That, in HP novels, good male characters can be physically beautiful but not the female ones. The so called beautiful people might just have been airbrushed and made up to look good but that can't take away from the fact that some people can be physically attractive at some point in their lives ( not all the time, granted). Physical beauty might not have the value placed on it by today's advertising age but it still has some value. The issue acquires importance since, JKR persistently links physical description to character. (Voldemort has a snake like face etc.) If that is the case, what does the fact that only Bellatrix is beautiful among all the female charcaters signify? That female beauty is a trap, an outwardly attractive thing that is designed to ensare innocent people? A well designed mask for horrible pursuit of power? Good females in her world are jolly, smart and loving but not beautiful and don't seem to care much about their appearances. So those who do care are either bimbettes or are using it for some ulterior motive? It has been said in this discussion, that the author's depiction of an uneven world doesn't imply sexism on the part of author. However, I think this persistent denial of beauty to female characters, does imply some kind of prejudice on the part of the author. spangb From oppen at mycns.net Sun Jan 11 07:50:37 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:50:37 -0600 Subject: Snape a vampire? Different explanation Message-ID: <068201c3d817$9d52c2c0$b1570043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 88422 No, I don't think for one second that Snape's a vampire. There's a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation for his behavior. He's a Goth. This would explain the clothes, the swooping, and the vampire-like behavior. And his attitude...he's just hung over out to HERE after a night at the Goth clubs in Edinburgh or Glasgow, and now he's got to deal with a bunch of inattentive, ungrateful little snots? Who wouldn't be crabby? --Eric, who knows some Goths who would love to be able to carry it off as well as Snape does. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 11 07:49:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:49:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's Privet Drive protection In-Reply-To: <20040111002637.61374.qmail@web20721.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Antonia Simigis wrote: Antonia: > Note that Vernon is standing inside the house, but > Harry is outside. Do people within the boundaries of > Privet Drive who try to hurt Harry get zapped because > of his mother's protection and Dumbledore's charm, or > did Harry zap him unintentionally? He is holding his > wand, after all. Geoff: I'm not sure that their physical positions are relevant. I say this because as a houseowner, the boundaries of my property are the hedges and fences which mark the sides etc. of the garden. Harry is in the garden and therefore is "within" the property. I suspect it's the same sort of reflex magical reaction which saw Harry finish up on the school roof, saw his hair re-grow and saw the glass panel in the Zoo disappear. Might teach Vernon to keep his hands to himself in future... :-) From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Jan 11 09:09:53 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:09:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88424 Marianne had written: > > This dialogue about Sirius is a case in point. While Hermione's > > interpretation may indeed be JKR's way of telling us the God's > honest > > truth about what Sirius was feeling and how that affected his > > actions, she is much too emphatic and definitive about it. What > > experience does she have with people who have gone through > anything > > near what Sirius' life has been like to truly develop an > > understanding of it? And Marina responded: > Yes, I see what you mean. It didn't bother me so much, because, > frankly, it never occured to me for even a second that Hermione > might be right in this instance. As you say, she has no meaningful > frame of reference from which to judge Sirius' mental state. I > think it's telling that the only other person who thinks Sirius is > confusing Harry with James is Molly Weasley, who doesn't know him, > either, and doesn't even particularly like him. Nothing Sirius > actually does or says indicates any confusion. > > However, I think it's perfectly in character for her to be wrong > with complete conviction, and I also think it's in character for > Harry to accept what she says as the truth, since he's used to > Hermione being the voice of reason and insight in most things. And > when it comes to dealing with their peers at Hogwarts -- Ron, Cho, > Neville -- Hermione is pretty reliable. But she doesn't fully grasp > the complexities of the adult world, either. Marianne replies: Perhaps it's Hermione style of making her assessments of people that has led some people to think that she's being set up to make a huge mistake in judgment as the series progresses. I agree, she is always very sure of her pronouncements and opinions. And she often is right about things. But, combine that with her occasional blindness with regards to others, and I can see where this could be a problem. Her assessment of Sirius shows this. She thinks he's lonely (and she is probably right about that) but then thinks that, since there will be other Order members floating in and out of Grimmauld Place, he'll have plenty of company. She seems not to recognize that a lonely person might crave the company of those he's fond of, rather than just any warm body that happens to be passing through. Marina again: > I think it's no coincidence that JKR surrounds Harry with guiding > figures -- Dumbledore, Hermione, Sirius himself, Remus -- who are > wise in some things, but are also capable of being wrong about some > very important things. The process of growing up includes learning > when to trust others for advice and when to go purely with one's own > judgement, and to know which person to trust in which instance. > Harry spends most of OOP being wrong about this. Hopefully, by the > end of book 7, he'll get the hang of it. Harry's always had a problem with going to adults for advice. Of course, if he did, the course of the books would have been dramatically different. But, you're right, he's got to recognize when to trust others and when to go with his gut feeling. Perhaps a sign of Harry's maturity in a future book will be when he goes to Snape for advice. (There will be a massive thud heard around the world as millions of Potter fans fall over in a dead faint.) Marianne From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 11 10:33:16 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:33:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and MWPP - knowing nicknames was|: Re: Why ole Snapey is a vamp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88425 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: >> vmonte responds: > Snape recognizes that the map belongs to Lupin's gang because he > known their nicknames since they were all in high school. In the > Snape pensieve chapter: James Potter and his gang are all calling > themselves by their nicknames... Out of earshot of Snape if memory serves. The Penseive gives much wider perspective of a memory than was there at the time of the event. It seems to be like a camera long shot, rather than a subjective Snape POV shot (using movie as metaphor here). In this sequence it is made clear that Snape is almost unaware of anyone's existence except his own - he leaves his DADA exam in an almost dreamlike state. He then sits at some distance from MWPP to further peruse his exam paper - and no doubt go over his answers in his head. (Ever done that after an exam? I certainly have and remembered doing so when I read this chapter for the first time). He is some distance away and therefore possibly cannot hear their conversation, as well as entirely focused on something else. Therefore it cannot be asserted confidently that he did hear or know their nicknames from that scene. When he has actual contact with them in the bullying part of the scene, his concentration is either on getting his own back, or getting away, then overshadowed by the humiliation, and again I suggest that he may not hear or register any nicknames used. Accordingly, this scene does not provide evidence that he knows who Moony, et al are, and therefore it is possible that while he might suspect who they are when he sees the Marauder's Map (and I DO believe he has a very good idea in POA), there is no guarantee that he does know for certain. And incidentally, whether or not Adult!Snape is a vampire (he isn't and Kneasy's last post was so spot on I can't reply, as "Me too!" is forbidden on this list) it is patently obvious from the Penseive scene that he wasn't at age 16. June From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Jan 11 12:57:25 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:57:25 +0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88426 Ever willing to stir the pot, particularly when others have made contributions that encourage my perverse mind to explore new paths, I offer the following comments recently made on the site for the consideration of lycanthrophiles: > Eloise: On reading Dracula (a vampire who did go abroad in daylight), I have to say that the character who came most to mind was Voldemort, with the red eyes, the mind connection thing with Mina Harker which is very similar to the way Harry witnesses Voldemort's experiences through his dreams (and additionally the realisation of both Dracula and Voldemort that this was happening), the fact that Voldemort, in vapour form and possibly earlier was arguably "undead", having gone through transformations which seem to have made him less than human yet immortal and the whole idea of "death eating" whatever that is precisely, but which has overtones of preying on the deaths of others as Dracula sucked the life from his victims. > and: >> Jake: (4) Snape is skilled at reading minds (a power attributed to vampires in many myths), >> > Kneasy: Maybe they do. But do they have to have a wand to cast spells to do it? > As you may have deduced from recent posts, I'm not a devotee of the vampire genre. I prefer evil brewed by the subtle, nasty mind of a rogue human (it gives me scope to fantasise that I could wreak similar torment on those that annoy me), rather than the sort originating from a variant of the bogey man. So, ever considerate to needs of others who may end up feeling deprived unless they have their appetite for the macabre sated, I wondered just who could be thrown onto the site to satisfy their unnatural lusts and thus leave the Snapeologists to the quiet, appreciative contemplation of the down-right nastiness of their favourite villain. Voldemort will do nicely. As Eloise points out, Dracula, as the original fictional and best known representative of the breed in Western literature, shares, or shows some similarities to Voldy. So do other vampires - this 'cheating death' (undead?) thing, the placing of thoughts into the minds of others, the red eyes, the ability to survive in non-human form, either animal or as a vaporous spirit, the possible meaning of the phrase 'death eater', the avoidance of daylight (how many times in the canon has Voldy or Quirrell without his turban, exposed himself to the sun?), the pale complexion, the unnaturally long fingers (Nosferatu), the vampire as the epitome of evil. Even the postulated attraction of Bella to Voldy would be explained; the Victorians used vampires as a sexual metaphor, didn't they? Jake mentions that in some vampire legends the ability to read minds is accepted; I responded with the comment about them not needing wands, unlike Snape. But there are clues that this is an attribute of Voldy; doesn't he do just this at the climax to PS/SS? "He lies...he lies...[]...now why don't you give me that stone in your pocket?" Why bother with Snape when Voldy seems to be typecast? Fair do's; I've offered arguments as to why Snape isn't a vampire. Now it's your turn; show me why Voldy isn't. Kneasy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 13:17:54 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:17:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and MWPP - knowing nicknames was|: Re: Why ole Snapey is a vamp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88427 June wrote: Out of earshot of Snape if memory serves. The Penseive gives much wider perspective of a memory than was there at the time of the event. It seems to be like a camera long shot, rather than a subjective Snape POV shot (using movie as metaphor here). In this sequence it is made clear that Snape is almost unaware of anyone's existence except his own - he leaves his DADA exam in an almost dreamlike state. He then sits at some distance from MWPP to further peruse his exam paper - and no doubt go over his answers in his head. vmonte responds: I know that he was out of earshot but once the memory is placed in the pensieve you are able to see and hear everything! If this is truly his memory, and not someone elses, he probably has viewed the scene in the pensieve already. I know I would have wanted to see everything from a removed perspective. vmonte From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 11 13:22:20 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:22:20 -0000 Subject: genealogy of Harry Potter: In-Reply-To: <20040110214510.52926.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kelly Penn wrote: > Geoff: > > I think the question of who can touch the prophecy refers to > > the /initial/ picking up and not later. Voldemort has been thwarted > > because he tried to get it via someone else; this failed because of > > the protection so he lured Harry to the MoM for that purpose. He > > could have got it himself but this would have confirmed that he had > > returned. Hermione978: > Yes, he did try to use Neville to get the prophecy, but if you re- read > the last part of O of P CAREFULLY Dumbledore tells Harry that the prophecy could most likely be him, but maybe not which is where Neville Longbottom > comes in. This is a definite clue and unexpected thing in JKR's writing. > It is worth noting. Geoff: I think you may have misunderstood my earlier comment. I wasn't referring to Neville when I said "via someone else". Voldermort's name was on the prophecy as well as Harry's so he could have got it for himself. However, if he had appeared in the Department, it would have made it crystal clear that he was back; but, by not taking this line and by working covertly, he was able to allow Fudge to continue to undermine Harry and Dumbledore by refusing to believe their story. It woudl seem though that he attempted to get someone else to get the prophecy.. Bode, it would seem. I couldn't locate the passage the other morning but I think the relevant bit is: "Beyond the chair, in a pool of light cast upon the floor by the candles, knelt a man in black robes. 'I have been badly advised, it seems' said Harry in a high, cold voice that pulsed with anger. 'Master, I crave your pardon,' croaked the man kneeling on the floor. The back of his g=head glimmered in the candlelight. He seemed to be trembling. 'I do not blame you, Rookwood,' said Harry in that cold, cruel voice. He relinquished his grip on the chair and walked round it, closer to the man cowering on the floor until he stood directly over him in the darkness looking down from a far greater height than usual. 'You are sure of your facts, Rookwood?' asked Harry. 'Yes, my Lord, yes.. I used to work in the Department after - after all.' 'Avery told me Bode would be able to remove it.' 'Bode could never have taken it , Master.... Bode would have known that he could not....'! (OOTP "Seen and Unforeseen" pp.515/16 UK edition) So, he had to try to get Harry to obtain it. Once it had been removed, once the intial removal form the shelf was achieved, then anyone could take it - Lucius Malfoy or Bellatrix - and pass it on. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jan 11 13:31:44 2004 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:31:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > Perhaps it's Hermione style of making her assessments of people that > has led some people to think that she's being set up to make a huge > mistake in judgment as the series progresses. I agree, she is always > very sure of her pronouncements and opinions. And she often is right > about things. But, combine that with her occasional blindness with > regards to others, and I can see where this could be a problem. Marina: I think Hermione has fallen into the trap I've seen a lot of very smart people fall into when they're young. She's right so often, that she's come to believe she must *always* be right. She's intelligent, she *knows* she's intelligent, and she thinks an intelligent person can't possible be wrong if she just thinks things through. Her attitude toward the house elves shows this, as do her comments about Sirius. In both cases, the situation is muddies by the fact that she's not *totally* wrong. The house elves *are* unfairly enslaved. Sirius *is* lonely. There's just enough truth in her wrong conclusions to make her absolutely sure of them. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Jan 11 13:37:45 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:37:45 -0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Ever willing to stir the pot, particularly when others have made > contributions that encourage my perverse mind to explore new paths, I > offer the following comments recently made on the site for the > consideration of lycanthrophiles: > Erratum. Please delete 'lycanthrophiles' and insert 'haemophagiophiles'. Thank you. Kneasy From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Jan 11 13:45:44 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:45:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley Ah, one of my favorite chapters . . . > > Discussion Questions: > > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? > I've always thought there's much more to the animosity between Arthur and Lucius than the Weasleys' finances. Going back to CoS and the near-brawl between them at Flourish & Blotts, which Arthur initiated after Lucius insulted the Grangers, it struck me that their animosity stems from specific events in their past that go far beyond their relative wealth. Those events may be responsible for Arthur's poverty, but it's something other than the poverty itself that really embarrasses Arthur (the kids, OTOH, only see the poverty). What is it? For us Imperius!Arthur aficionados, the simple answer is that Lucius Imperio'd Arthur during VWI, possibly forcing him to victimise Muggles. (Remember how Lucius got off by claiming the Imperius Curse?) And members of the Auror!Arthur wing of the Imperius!Arthur Trimaran have already developed a scenario in which Arthur's known susceptibility to Imperius have cost him his Auror job at the Ministry. (I could spin an entire tale, but it's not relevant to this chapter. > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's > a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at > this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the > position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe > that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will > Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this > acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as > a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who > is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? > Marianne wrote: > I think that Hermione is indeed intended to be not only Harry's > guide, but also a character who functions to bring important points > or insights about other characters to the readers' attention. And, > it's the main reason I have a problem with Hermione. her role of > interpreter of other character's internal emotional states seems > beyond her life experience as a fifteen-year-old. It's when JKR uses her to analyze the motivations and > feelings of the adults around her that I feel a false note. I didn't have a problem with this scene on first reading because Hermione is fairly clear here that she's using Molly's earlier comments about Sirius as a starting point. Whether Hermione was right or wrong ? and I didn't particularly credit her assessment ? didn't seem to be important for purposes of this scene. However, as she continued to analyze adult characters, it all began to seem OOC ? setting aside her misguided attempt to free the house-elves, Hermione is too unerringly right in her assessments ? not just of Sirius but of Umbridge and Rita Skeeter ? to be realistic, even for most adults. As someone mentioned, JKR has said that she uses Hermione as a conduit for information the reader needs to know, but I think assessing the feelings and motivations of adults is outside the scope of "information" ? we didn't learn any factual information from the scene in ch. 9. In fact, hearing this from Hermione's mouth made me less likely to credit what Molly had said. It's very much unlike in GoF during the rift between Harry and Ron when Hermione tried to explain how Ron was feeling. Ron was a close friend whose interaction with Harry she'd been observing for over 3 years at that point. She barely knows Sirius, and she has Umbridge pegged from the moment she arrived at Hogwarts. Sorry for the rant, but Hermione in OOP doesn't seem true. > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? I don't have an answer to this other than speculation. I think Molly must know the story by now but still thinks of "Scabbers the pet" rather than Scabbers the traitorous animagus, because Scabbers lived in her home as a pet for 12 years. > > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. > Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the > revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter > affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting > to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. > Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in= Ron? For Molly, who does seem to find the family's poverty distressing, traditional WW marks of achievement (prefect, head boy, lots of OWLs and NEWTs, good job at the Ministry, etc.) seem to be touchstones that remind Molly that the family is not a "disgrace to the name of wizard" (what Lucius tells Arthur in CoS). Her modus operandi is to offer rewards for recognition such as a prefect's badge and to nag those who don't receive the kind of recognition she values ? she *does* seem to regard the twins and their aspirations as so much chopped liver. This system, unfortunately, isn't likely to motivate Ron. Fortunately for him, Dumbledore doesn't make choices based solely on past achievement. The last questions here are very interesting. I think Ron's temperament much more models Percy's than any other member of his family, though outwardly he allies himself with the twins in order to avoid the merciless teasing that the twins have historically heaped on Percy (there's no evidence that he's actually like the twins or he would have been nicking food from the kitchen long before Hermione found the entrance in GoF). Because Ron has *appeared* to favor the twins over Percy, I don't think Molly harbored much hope for Ron; in fact, in either PoA or GoF, Molly comments that it would be unlikely that there would be any more prefects in the family. > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? > Marina wrote: > I actually think that Neville would've been a better choice. He > needed a confidence booster as much as Ron did, and had already > demonstrated, back in PS/SS, the courage to stand up to his peers > for the good of the house. But in story terms, Neville is still too > minor a character. Plus, his confidence booster came from the DA > instead. Actually, I think the whole prefect storyline was kind of > wasted in the book. Most of Ron's character development came from > his role as a Quidditch player, not from his role of prefect. Of > course, if he hadn't made prefect, he wouldn't have had a broom to get on the Quidditch team with, so perhaps that was its only purpose. Certainly plot-wise Ron and not Neville needed to be the new prefect. I thought it worked rather well in a number of ways. Ron's unwillingness to take on the more difficult leadership responsibilities associated with the prefect position ? especially vis-?-vis the Twins ? paralleled Lupin's unwillingness to call James and Sirius for their actions as well as his woes at Quidditch. I think Dumbledore had good strategic reasons for selecting Ron as prefect that had more to do with his awareness that, as a friend of Harry's Ron is going to be involved in the war and that various factors ? including the shadow of his older brothers and friends and Molly's expectations ? had left Ron badly lacking in the self- confidence he would need in the coming battle. And it worked. Even though the confidence finally came at Quidditch, Ron badly needed someone to believe in him. > > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? I've long argued that Ron is *not* like the Twins. Nor do I think he wants to be like them; he wants to find his own niche. > > 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the > original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown > people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? If someone is still living, it will have to be Caradoc Dearborn, since all the other bodies are accounted for. ;-) > 16. Does Mrs. Weasley's Boggart really conjure the image of both > twins dead together? What does this tell us about her perception > of the twins? What does it tell us about JKR's? > I think this says more about how JKR wrote the twins than how Mrs. Weasley sees her children. I'm sure the LOONs will call me on this, but I can't think of a single scene in which both twins were not together. (Someone else in this thread mentioned the fight after the first Quidditch. Only George was involved in the fight, but that was only because the Chasers were already holding Fred back from the Slytherins.) I see subtle differences between the twins but they do function as a unit in the story. > 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained > her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so > ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told > about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's > woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the > coming war? > NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 as well as "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 13:55:07 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:55:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and MWPP - knowing nicknames was|: Re: Why ole Snapey is a vamp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > And incidentally, whether or not Adult!Snape is a vampire (he isn't > and Kneasy's last post was so spot on I can't reply, as "Me too!" is > forbidden on this list) it is patently obvious from the Penseive > scene that he wasn't at age 16. > I must ask how it is patently obvious that Snape wasn't a half- vampire at the age of 16? I belive just the opposite so I'm curious. "K" From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 11 14:19:33 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:19:33 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote:> > I must ask how it is patently obvious that Snape wasn't a half- > vampire at the age of 16? I belive just the opposite so I'm curious. > > "K" Never said he was or wasn't half a vampire, a quarter vampire or touched with the vampire brush even, just that it was patently obvious that he was NOT A VAMPIRE at sixteen - unless he had a body shield that enabled him to walk around in sunlight. I'm talking traditional vampire here, and not Ann Rice's stuff. Anyhow, he's canonically sixteen years old at the time of the Penseive scene and therefore not some Ricean "Child of the Milennia" who if I recall were only briefly able to expose themselves to the sun and survive. I have a British word (rather anglo-saxon in origin!) for the half- vampire idea but am not allowed to use it on list. I have similar British words for vampire theory too. This "vampire" watches day time quidditch matches, apparently unshrouded from the daylight, functions without problem - in the daytime. Perleeze. Staying up late is NOT conclusive proof of vampirism. When I don't have work to think about in the morning, I quite like to stay up until 2 am - that does not make me a vampire. And JKR has not tinkered with the traditional werewolf canon - so why should she play about with the vampire idea and change the rules to suit herself? >From half or any other fractions of vampirism I wouldn't know. Like Kneasy - I simply believe it would not serve the plot one iota. It's a red herring - all you Snape is Vampire fans - believe it, and get over it! Psychotic nutter!Snape - I can buy that,even welcome it as interesting at least, ArchTraitor!Snape - fine, Totallyinitforhisownagenda!Snape - no problem with that. These probabilities make the character interesting. JKR likes him best of all her characters (and so do I) - just a two dimensional vampire? Give her some credit. If he is being set up as the personification of a moral dilemma at the heart of the book (and I believe that is the case) then let's have a flawed and realistic adult human being wrestling with it, not some undead thing or half-breed. And for what it's worth - I think the final truth will be TragicallyRedeemed!Human!Snape. So there. June Amd is this a record for the number of ExclamationMark!Snape's in any single post? From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 11 15:28:08 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:28:08 -0000 Subject: Why ole Snapey is a vamp Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88434 I am so enamoured by the idea of Filch as Snape's Igor that I am almost tempted to believe the vampire theory. Thanks, Kneasy, forthe best laugh I have had all week! Sylvia (who thinks Kneasy is our king) From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 15:32:41 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:32:41 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" > wrote:> just that it was patently > obvious that he was NOT A VAMPIRE at sixteen - unless he had a body > shield that enabled him to walk around in sunlight. "K" Oh, the old sunlight issue again. June: > I'm talking traditional vampire here, and not Ann Rice's stuff. "K" So who's tradition are we talking about? June: > When I don't have work to think about in the morning, I > quite like to stay up until 2 am - that does not make me a vampire. "K" We aren't talking about our world. We are talking about a fantasy world. June: > And JKR has not tinkered with the traditional werewolf canon "K" How many werewolves do you know who take a potion? I also don't know many werewolves who run around with friends who can turn themselves into animals. June: I simply believe it would not serve the plot one iota. "K" And I think vampires are going to be a big part of the story. It's not just going to be one little vampire. June: > It's a red herring "K" To cover what? June: > Psychotic nutter!Snape - I can buy that,even welcome it as > interesting at least "K" I think we surely differ on what would be interesting. Psychotic nutter? June: >just a two dimensional vampire? > Give her some credit. "K" Who said Snape would only be a two dimensional character if he were a half-vampire? Give her more credit? I do. June: > If he is being set up as the personification of a moral dilemma at > the heart of the book (and I believe that is the case) then let's > have a flawed and realistic adult human being wrestling with it, not > some undead thing or half-breed. "K" Then let's make all the characters only wizards. No werewolves, giants, merpeople, trolls, goblins, vampires, veela's, fairies, wizards who can turn into animals, wizards who can change their appearance, etc. Actually, let's make then all muggles. To heck with imagination. June: > And for what it's worth - I think the final truth will be > TragicallyRedeemed!Human!Snape. I hope so. :-) "K" I guess I must get my vampire essay together. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 11 16:02:25 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Jan 2004 16:02:25 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1073836945.32.21651.m6@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88436 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, January 11, 2004 Time: 11:00AM - 7:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) Hi everyone! Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. *Chat times are not changing for Daylight Saving/Summer Time.* Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. Go into any Yahoo chat room and type /join HP:1 For further info, see the Humongous BigFile, section 3.3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html#33 Hope to see you there! From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sun Jan 11 16:33:41 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:33:41 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reminder - Weekly Chat In-Reply-To: <1073836945.32.21651.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d860$ac248380$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88437 > -----Original Message----- > From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:02 AM > To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reminder - Weekly Chat > > > We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. > > Weekly Chat > > Date: Sunday, January 11, 2004 > Time: 11:00AM - 7:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) > > Hi everyone! > > Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 > pm UK time. *Chat times are not changing for Daylight > Saving/Summer Time.* Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, > but can last as long as people want it to last. > Iggy de-cloaking for a second: Yeah... yeah... I know... I'm commenting again. Something just struck me here, though. The starting time listed first is 11am CST... Later, it's listed as 11am Pacific... which is 2 hours after CST and would make the CST starting time 1pm. Ummm... so which time is right? Iggy McSnurd (who may show up on chat some day... if he's sure when it actually is...) From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 11 16:37:03 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:37:03 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88438 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" > "K" > > Oh, the old sunlight issue again. June: No - not old fairly standard I think. > > June: > > I'm talking traditional vampire here, and not Ann Rice's stuff. > > "K" > > So who's tradition are we talking about? June: Try european folklore, try English literary mythpool, eg Stoker, Byron et al. All fairly central about the no daylight idea. How many other traditions are there? And what traditions are you holding up for inspection? Which vampire tradition has daywalking Vampires? Do tell. > > June: > > When I don't have work to think about in the morning, I > > quite like to stay up until 2 am - that does not make me a vampire. > > "K" > > We aren't talking about our world. We are talking about a fantasy > world. June: so indeed am I. But I assert the best literary fantasy worlds tend to be firmly rooted in realism - that is one of the reasons that JKR's books have been so successful and so compelling. She has not had to create an alternative universe to do it, but rather has created a Wizarding World that exists cheek by jowl with our own. The Wizarding World as drawn by JKR exists IN our own world, at least that is what she is trying (in my opinion successfully) to make us believe. If she creates an entirely alternate universe, I freely accept she will keep some fans, but also state that she will lose a good many. Tweaking the conventions is one thing, chucking them all out of the window is quite another. If this is a vampire walking around in daytime, without problems, let's be honest and call him something different entirely. That's not a vampire as I understand the word from 35 years of reading horror stories as well as folklore and legend. The daytime thing is fairly central. I've seen the crosses and garlic debunked, not the daytime. Obviously in pursuit of support to your theory you will say that "the daylight thing doesn't matter" - bad news - to me and the rest of us anti-Vampire!Snape - it most certainly does. > > June: > > And JKR has not tinkered with the traditional werewolf canon > > "K" > > How many werewolves do you know who take a potion? I also don't know > many werewolves who run around with friends who can turn themselves > into animals. Okay - tinkered in that respect. He still has most of the symptoms though. He still becomes a wolf at full moon. He takes on the appearance and behaviour of a wolf. Full scale tinkering would enable him to sprout wings and fly, perhaps, or still speak fluent english whilst transformed. The potion is a comparatively new development. Before its invention, Lupin was no different from the "traditional" european legend style werewolf. And if as you say, you don't know any werewolves who can run around with animal friends - well I don't know any werewolves at all;-) - all my werewolf aquaintances are in books - particularly folklore references such as Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. However, the concept of wizard shape-changers is fairly well part of the wellspring of fantasy too. I think JKR took the concept of a child with a particular problem who would have trouble fitting into a school and storied ways in which Lupin could be part of that and fit in. A metaphor for "fitting in" generally - put there for children and adults to relate to. Snape doesn't have problems fitting in because he's a vampire, he has problems fitting in because of his personality. > > June: > I simply believe it would not serve the plot one iota. > > "K" > > And I think vampires are going to be a big part of the story. It's > not just going to be one little vampire. If he is a vampire (and he isn't - just forget it Vampire!Snape fans) - he's certainly not going to be a LITTLE vampire. If I must accept Vampire!Snape - it'd sure better be BigVampire!Snape. > > June: > > It's a red herring > > "K" > > To cover what? Not to cover anything. Red herrings do not have to exist to cover other things. It's just a "let people suspect he is a vampire" thing, if they want. If people buy that, fine, just don't expect me to support it. What does it serve having: a. Snape as a vampire, half vampire, whatever nonsensical variation of genetics you want-ire b. Tearing up the whole vampire canon just to make him one? Tearing up the rules in fantasy often implies desperate writer to me. I don't think JKR is desperate. I think making Snape a vampire would be an act of desperation by JKR. Far harder to write a tortured and damaged man. > > June: > > Psychotic nutter!Snape - I can buy that,even welcome it as > > interesting at least > > "K" > > I think we surely differ on what would be interesting. Psychotic > nutter? Why not? No less plausible than the daytime Vampire. And perhaps you believe the Death Eaters just get together to play darts in the appropriate Knockturn Alley pub? Perhaps he is a keen killer, rapist and pillager. Psychotic nutter is good enough for me. I found Hannibal Lecter a thoroughly engrossing character -he was psychotic nutter enough and smart too. Characters do not have to be fluffy to be entertaining. > > June: > >just a two dimensional vampire? > > Give her some credit. > > "K" > Who said Snape would only be a two dimensional character if he were a > half-vampire? Give her more credit? I do. I don't have to - two dimensional is surely in the eye of the beholder. That would be in mine. > > > June: > > If he is being set up as the personification of a moral dilemma at > > the heart of the book (and I believe that is the case) then let's > > have a flawed and realistic adult human being wrestling with it, > not > > some undead thing or half-breed. > > "K" > > Then let's make all the characters only wizards. No werewolves, > giants, merpeople, trolls, goblins, vampires, veela's, fairies, > wizards who can turn into animals, wizards who can change their > appearance, etc. Actually, let's make then all muggles. To heck with > imagination. Oooh. None of these were original you know - I can direct anyone to the appropriate bit of traditional folklore for these characters. She didn't make any of them up. Sure she tweaked some of the characteristics. And by the way, all the merpeople still live in the water. You seem to be extrapolating my views about Vampire!Snape somewhat excessively here. I don't BELIEVE he is a vampire. I don't think it will happen. I said that I preferred this central character to be human - we all have hopes for the story. Its a very long way from that assertion to implying I am saying JKR should only write kitchen sink drama. If I am going to relate to this character then I personally would prefer to relate to a person, that is all. > > June: > > And for what it's worth - I think the final truth will be > > TragicallyRedeemed!Human!Snape. > > I hope so. :-) > > > "K" > I guess I must get my vampire essay together. Do. Not that I'll buy any of it!!! June From ellydan at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 13:41:41 2004 From: ellydan at yahoo.com (Melete-BlueAsrai) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:41:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Beauty in HP In-Reply-To: <1073790851.9689.5356.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040111134141.65565.qmail@web40811.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88439 After reading about the lack of stereotypical (i.e. superficial beauty) in HP, I was struck with a bit of a thought and its not hugely noticable but I can't help but wonder if the outer features of the characters do not reveal something of their personality. Its just a thought and a half-thought at that..nothing terribly well thought out. I've also been thinking a great deal about the small size of Harry. Really it seems to be brought up enough so that we get this idea that Harry is fairly small for his age...most likely from undernourishment. But I wondered if its also a bit of a reflection of Kaspar Hauserism...this idea that emotionally traumatized youth have a tendency to be stunted in growth not only from lack of nutrition but also a great deal from abuse. In the case of Kaspar Hauser he was kept in a basement...not communicated with and not really taken care of..much more extreme than Harry's case. But his diminutive stature also reflects a common characteristic of abused children..that are either permanently stunted in growth and sometimes even in voice or at least for a longer period. Melete __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 14:46:11 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:46:11 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88440 vmont wrote> *snip*> > I also have a question: Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for > example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? > > Can transfiguration be used (like when drinking polyjuice)to > impersonate another character (without being a metamorph)? > > Do you think any of the children (like Luna for example) are really > Minerva, DD, or even Tonks for that matter? This may not really answer your first question, but in one of the book - I don't remember which right now - when Harry walked by the Transfiguration room Mcgonagall was telling someone off for turning his friend into a badger. Also in GOF Fake!Moody turned Malfoy into a ferret. However, both of these instances took place when person1 turned person2 into an animal. I believe that only anamagi can turn themselves into animals. To answer your second question, IMHO I do not think that transfiguration can be used to impersonate another character. Why would Crouch Jr. go to all the trouble of keeping Moody alive, making the polyjuice potion, and taking it every hour on the hour if he could just transfigure himself? Also, the MOM keeps track of all anamagi ( it thinks) so that they know if someone transforms, it would be impossible to keep track of all of the wizards who could transform using transfiguration. I don't know about Mcgonagall, but DD and Tonks can't be any of the major or immediate minor characters because at the end of OoTP DD and Tonks both came to the Dept. of Mysteries and the children where there also. I know that there are those who think that Hermione is Mcgonagall or that Ron is DD, but personally, I don't. tlpbupu From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Jan 11 17:29:20 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:29:20 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tlpbupu" wrote: > vmont wrote> > *snip*> > > I also have a question: Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for > > example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? Well, Krum tried to transfigure himself into a shark for the second task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. As Bagman described it, "Krum used an incomplete form of Transfiguration, which was nevertheless effective..." So it seems to be implied that wizards can transfigure themselves into another life form. Which then begs the question, what's the big deal with Animagi, if a wizard can transform himself into whatever other animal he chooses? Unless what the Krum transformation shows is that wizards can transform others into animals, ie, Fake!Malfoy turning Draco into a ferret, but can only partially transform themselves into other animals. Maybe we can convince JKR to put together a book, once the series is over, that explains all the little details that we obsess about... Marianne From amani at charter.net Sun Jan 11 17:58:09 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:58:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? References: Message-ID: <001f01c3d86c$7a1d1620$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tlpbupu" wrote: > vmont wrote> > *snip*> > > I also have a question: Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for > > example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? Marianne: Well, Krum tried to transfigure himself into a shark for the second task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. As Bagman described it, "Krum used an incomplete form of Transfiguration, which was nevertheless effective..." So it seems to be implied that wizards can transfigure themselves into another life form. Which then begs the question, what's the big deal with Animagi, if a wizard can transform himself into whatever other animal he chooses? Unless what the Krum transformation shows is that wizards can transform others into animals, ie, Fake!Malfoy turning Draco into a ferret, but can only partially transform themselves into other animals. Taryn: IMO, this is answered, but I suppose it's debateable. I'll give the following quote from Quidditch through the Ages: "No spell yet devised enables wizards to fly unaided in human form. Those few Animagi who transform into winged creatures may enjoy flight, but they are a rarity. The witch of wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." (American hardback, pg. 1) So it seems answered that when a person is TRANSFIGURED into an animal, they also retain the animal's brain, which is certainly detrimental. This is opposed to Animagi, who seem to retain their mind. For the most part, anyway, as we must remember Sirius talking about how his emotions were simpler when in dog form, so he could slip past the Dementors. But it seems a very dramatic difference between the two. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 19:03:58 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:03:58 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? In-Reply-To: <001f01c3d86c$7a1d1620$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88443 > Marianne: > Well, Krum tried to transfigure himself into a shark for the second > task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. As Bagman described it, "Krum used > an incomplete form of Transfiguration, which was nevertheless > effective..." > > > Taryn quotes QttA: > "The witch of wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." (American hardback, pg. 1) > > So it seems answered that when a person is TRANSFIGURED into an animal, they also retain the animal's brain, which is certainly detrimental. Constance Vigilance (me): Which makes one wonder why Krum would choose to become a *shark*!! He might have *eaten* Hermione instead of rescuing her. Why not a cute dolphin or something, not only not as lethal, but smarter, too! Standard sig: Quirrell Lives! From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 19:06:22 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:06:22 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tlpbupu" wrote: > > vmont wrote> > > *snip*> > > > I also have a question: Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for > > > example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? > Marianne: > > Well, Krum tried to transfigure himself into a shark for the second > task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. ...edited... > > So it seems to be implied that wizards can transfigure themselves > into another life form. > > ..., what's the big deal with Animagi, if a wizard can transform > himself into whatever other animal he chooses? ...edited... > > Marianne bboy_mn: People can transform into animals, but we have no information that those human-to-animal tranfigurations are permanent. By 'permanent', I mean they sustain until reversed. Just after coming out of the water, Krum is normal again; did that happen because he cast a spell to transform himself back to his normal self, and if he did, how did he recite the incantation when he had the head of a shark? On the other hand, if time just ran out and the 'shark' spell expired, the would change back to normal without require any intervention on Krum's part or anyone else's. Personally, I think time just ran out, as with Harry's gillyweed, Krum shark transformation was only good for a limited time. A much wiser choice was the 'bubble head' charm which I suspect could have been sustained for a much longer period of time, but even that would have it's limits, but the advantage to 'bubble head' is it left you free to re-charm the bubble at specific intervals to maintain the charm. A luxury which Harry and Krum did not have. In an interview JKR said that objects that are conjured (creating something from nothing) aren't permanent, eventually they revert back to nothing. That's why you can't create food by conjuring it. Well, you can create the food and eat it, but in an hour or so the food vanishes and you eventually starve. I think this same principle could be applied to certain forms of tranfiguration. Just a thought. bboy_mn From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 19:17:43 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:17:43 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > > No - not old fairly standard I think. "K" There's standard folklore of vampires who walk in the daylight and those who fry in the sun. > June: > Try european folklore, try English literary mythpool, eg Stoker, > Byron et al. All fairly central about the no daylight idea. "K" Not really true. ~~Traditionally, sunlight was not thought to kill vampires. In medieval times, vampires were thought to be able to walk around just as easily as humans during daylight. As literary vampirism increased, so did the vampire's aversion to sunlight. In Dracula, Van Helsing notes that the vampire can walk around by day, although he is not as strong. However, modern film and novels have increasingly shown vampires as vulnerable to sunlight, perhaps even mortally so.~~ June: How > many other traditions are there? And what traditions are you > holding up for inspection? Which vampire tradition has daywalking > Vampires? Do tell. "K" European, worldwide, movies, literature. The usual. > > June: > Tweaking the conventions is one thing, chucking them all out of the > window is quite another. "K" She can tweak a werewolf but not a vampire? How about a wizard and a giant having a half-giant. Now that's tweaking! June: > If this is a vampire walking around in > daytime, without problems, let's be honest and call him something > different entirely. "K" Like a Daywalker? Or a vampire? June: I've seen the crosses > and garlic debunked, not the daytime. Obviously in pursuit of > support to your theory you will say that "the daylight thing doesn't > matter" - bad news - to me and the rest of us anti-Vampire!Snape - > it most certainly does. "K" JKR can make a potion for a werewolf but she can't make one for a half-vampire or a full vampire? June: > Okay - tinkered in that respect. He still has most of the symptoms > though. He still becomes a wolf at full moon. He takes on the > appearance and behaviour of a wolf. Full scale tinkering would > enable him to sprout wings and fly, perhaps, or still speak fluent > english whilst transformed. The potion is a comparatively new > development. "K" Why can't Snape being hiding those things with a potion or something else? June: > Snape doesn't have problems fitting in because he's a vampire, he > has problems fitting in because of his personality. "K" Says who? That's just a theory. Nor am I trying to excuse all of Snape's actions on vampirism. June: > If he is a vampire (and he isn't - just forget it Vampire!Snape > fans) - he's certainly not going to be a LITTLE vampire. If I must > accept Vampire!Snape - it'd sure better be BigVampire!Snape. "K" Who says Snape would be a LITTLE vampire. Surely you don't think being a half-vampire would make him a LITTLE vampire? If he was born that way then he would be a Dhampir and they are anything but little vampires June: > > Not to cover anything. Red herrings do not have to exist to cover > other things. It's just a "let people suspect he is a vampire" > thing, if they want. "K" Now that would be a cheap trick. It's one thing to give a red herring to take our mind away from something important. It's another thing to give us hints just to fool the reader about nothing. June: > b. Tearing up the whole vampire canon just to make him one? "K" Again, who says she is doing that? As others have said, it's not so much readers wanting a vampire and trying to make Snape one. It's a matter of the clues pointing to Snape. June: I think making Snape a vampire > would be an act of desperation by JKR. Far harder to write a > tortured and damaged man. "K" I just don't understand why a tortured and damaged man can't be a vampire. Are there no tortured and damaged werewolves, fairies, giants, veelas, and so on? June: And perhaps > you believe the Death Eaters just get together to play darts in the > appropriate Knockturn Alley pub? Where did that come from??? June: Perhaps he is a keen killer, > rapist and pillager. Psychotic nutter is good enough for me. "K" He could be. I would cease to like him if he were. June: >I > found Hannibal Lecter a thoroughly engrossing character -he was > psychotic nutter enough and smart too. Characters do not have to be > fluffy to be entertaining. lol Since when are vampires fluffy? We do differ. I didn't find Hannibal Lecter engrossing or intertaining. June: > Oooh. None of these were original you know - I can direct anyone to > the appropriate bit of traditional folklore for these characters. > She didn't make any of them up. Sure she tweaked some of the > characteristics. And by the way, all the merpeople still live in the > water. "K" It doesn't matter if she made them up or not. What I'm saying is why can we have a story with loads of different creatures but heaven forbid if the vampire made an appearance. June: >I said that I preferred this central character to be > human - we all have hopes for the story. Its a very long way from > that assertion to implying I am saying JKR should only write kitchen > sink drama. "K" We do all have hopes for the story. Yet IMO having Snape half-vampire wouldn't take away from his human side at all. > > "K" > > I guess I must get my vampire essay together. June: > Do. Not that I'll buy any of it!!! > Oh, I'm not asking you to. Just as I'm not buying that he isn't. "K" From trinity61us at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 19:41:59 2004 From: trinity61us at yahoo.com (Alex Fox) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:59 -0000 Subject: weekly chat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88446 I seem to be having trouble logging on to the chat. Has something changed? Is it still join/ HP:1? Thanks! Alex Fox From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 20:16:38 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:16:38 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (was Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88447 Hi Elfun-Deb, I had a couple minor comments I wanted to pass along to you about your Chapter Discussion post at HPforGrownups. You'll find my comments embedded farther down in this post. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > > > > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > > prefect. ... > Elfundeb2: > > Ron? > > ...edited... > > The last questions here are very interesting. I think Ron's > temperament much more models Percy's than any other member of his > family, though outwardly he allies himself with the twins in order > to avoid the merciless teasing that the twins have historically > heaped on Percy (there's no evidence that he's actually like the > twins or he would have been nicking food from the kitchen long > before Hermione found the entrance in GoF). bboy_mn/Steve: How many people do you think we will find who agree with US that Percy and Ron are very much a like? I've always held that view, but mostly get arguments whenever I bring it up. It's true they don't act the same outwardly, and so people refuse to see that there is a similarity between them. I think you said it perfectly, they have similar temperaments; most notably, I think they are both STUBBORN as mules. > > > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? > > > Elfundeb2: > > Certainly plot-wise Ron and not Neville needed to be the new > prefect. I thought it worked rather well in a number of ways. > ...edited... > > I think Dumbledore had good strategic reasons for selecting Ron as > prefect that had more to do with his awareness that, ...Ron is going > to be involved in the war and that various factors ... had left Ron > badly lacking in the self-confidence he would need in the coming > battle. And it worked. ... bboy_mn/steve: Many times I've defended the choice of Ron as Prefect. If not Ron they who? Ron has, time and time again, shown that he can take initiative and decisive action under difficult circumstances, and that he isn't afraid to put himself in danger to protect others. If you had a group of first years who were confronted by difficult and dangerous trouble, of all the Gryffindor boy's, excluding Harry, who would you want there to defend them? I can't think of a better choice than Ron. Whether for good or bad, Ron HAS distinguished himself, that something that Dean and Seamus have not done. No one other than Neville has ever demostrated the ability to take initiative in difficult circumstances (excluding Harry again), and under present conditions, I would certainly take Ron over Neville when I came to a crisis. > > > > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does > > Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? > Elfundeb2: > > I've long argued that Ron is *not* like the Twins. Nor do I think > he wants to be like them; he wants to find his own niche. > bboy_mn: I would gladly argue the same point. Moving slightly into the realm of my own internal fiction, I've always pictured the Weasley boys in their younger days with the Twins constantly getting Ron into trouble (or hurt), and Percy being the older brother that Ron ran to for comfort and protection. In the beginning Ron hangs out with the Twins because they are more fun and well liked, but they are not very comforting or nurturing, I think that role fell to Percy being the one older brother still at home. I also think that Ron see the advantages of being friendly with the Twins, being on their good side; so he is constantly seeking the approval, but even more than that, he is constantly avoiding their DISapproval. I think this 'approval seeking' is a characteristic Ron shares with Percy, although, Percy is less likely to avoid the Twins disapproval, because any attempt to be viewed as favorable as the Twins by his own family and peers is a ship that sailed off a long time ago. So Ron and Percy are both approval seekers but each in their own separate disfunctional way. Many of you have read my posts about Percy playing the disfunctional family role of the 'Good Son', for those who haven't, note that I believe that Percy's main problem is that he is trapped in a downward spiral of 'approval seeking', and believe it or not, much of the approval he seeks needs to some from Ron and the Twins, which only proves just how sadly disfunctional the role is that Percy has buried himself in. Ron on the other hand, still has a chance to break the disfunctional cycle before he becomes as deeply entrenched as Percy. Once the Twins are gone from Hogwarts, Ron becomes much more comfortable with himself, and that's when he begins to show his true potential. Without having to fear the Twin approval/disapproval, Ron is free to attempt things without the impending fear of rejection. Just a few general thoughts. bboy_mn From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:17:38 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:17:38 -0000 Subject: weekly chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Fox" wrote: > I seem to be having trouble logging on to the chat. Has something > changed? Is it still join/ HP:1? Thanks! > > Alex Fox it's /join hp:1 From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Sun Jan 11 21:18:08 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:18:08 -0000 Subject: Mysterious Prophesies (was genealogy of HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88449 - > Geoff: > I think the question of who can touch the prophecy refers to > the /initial/ picking up and not later. Voldemort has been thwarted > because he tried to get it via someone else; this failed because of > the protection so he lured Harry to the MoM for that purpose. He > could have got it himself but this would have confirmed that he had > returned. > Arya now: I keep coming back to the question of *how* those recordings get into the Hall of Prophesy. I'm convinced it is some magical, automatically generated thing that when an authentic prophesy is made, a recording then appears int he hall because it would be impossible to rely on people to report eh occurence of a prophesy. I don't for one second believe Dumbledore witnessed the prophesy and then went to report it to the Ministry to ensure an official record was kept. But, on the other hand, if it isn't told to DoM people by the ones who witness prophesies, then how does the DoM know the contents of the prophecies well enough to be able to label them "Dark Lord and (fomerly a question mark) Harry Potter"? I got to thinking about this again because I began to wonder about the "safeguard" on the spheres allowing only those mentioned in a prophesy to touch it. If the Hall of Prophesy is run in some self-generating way then I can see the Hall "knowing" the true identity of those, even obliquely mentioned, in a prophesy as those who shall be rightfully able to pick it up. However, if it is some DoM wizards cataloguing these prophesies then perhaps they are the ones who cast a jinx upon the spheres to allow only the Dark Lord or Harry Potter to pick it up. In this case, then the matter of who can touch the sphere is not one of truth but of a wizard's interpretation. And now, this whole thing has me contemplating the nature of the DoM and all the prophesies kept there. If they are auto-generated, then what's the purpose? They must have a way somehow of knwoing the contents to be able to properly label them and correct those labels. But if it's not a real life witch or wizard, then what's the point? If it is a real live person, then why not use this person to get the contents? Or--why was there not a recording of the second prophesy at the end of PoA that foretold the return of the Dark Lord? In fact, in PoA, Dumbledore seems only but mildly concerned that Trewlawney made a prediction that night to Harry. He doesn't ask for any details besides the gloss over Harry first gives. Given the seriousness of the first prophecy, I would think Dumbledore would be very curious and concerned about the second prophesy's contents. Then again, maybe that just lends evidence to the fly/wasp on the wall theory or at least suggests Dumbledore already knew about it somehow. I wonder if there are any portraits in her stifling tower? Arya From flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 20:48:42 2004 From: flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com (Diana Walter) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:48:42 -0000 Subject: Snape a vampire? Different explanation In-Reply-To: <068201c3d817$9d52c2c0$b1570043@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: > No, I don't think for one second that Snape's a vampire. > > There's a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation for his behavior. > > He's a Goth. Me: You know, I hadn't been thinking about it as an explanation for his vampire-like traits, but while I was reading the Pensieve scene I pictured him as a Goth (with a striking resemblance to a friend of my brother's), and the image really clicked. Then I pictured his adult self as a Goth-grown-up. It was incredible; Snape had never seemed so real to me. So, while I'm not making any definitive statements about what Snape is or isn't, I do think this particular way of viewing him really helps his attitutes and relationships with everyone make sense. --daw From topfor at aol.com Sun Jan 11 21:09:31 2004 From: topfor at aol.com (smtopliff) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:09:31 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice Potion question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88451 I could not find specific discussion regarding the Polyjuice Potion that Barty Crouch Jr. was using although I thought there had been-- please enlighten me: There is some ambiguity regarding the timeline prior to Moody's attack by Crouch at the beginning of GOF (later revealed at the end during Crouch Jr's confession) but if it takes a month or more to brew the potion how was there time to lay out this whole plan? We know that the attack on Moody was August 31st, the night before start of term, and we know that the attack on Frank Bryce was mid-August, based on the vision that Harry had in Chapter One of GOF, so my question then is this: when did Voldemort approach Barty Crouch Jr.? And who brewed the Polyjuice Potion and where? Let me continue to think as I write... Let's see...Bertha was missing at that point for over a month based on what Percy said at the dinner table prior the the group going to the world cup...that means she was missing from mid-July or thereabouts...Hmmm. Voldemort got the info. about the World Cup from Bertha, he had the information up to six weeks before the start of term, so he or someone had time to brew the potion. How did he know that Moody was going to be the new DADA teacher? I think he would have considered it poetic justice to then replace him with Crouch given all that he did to the Death Eaters as an Auror, just as he had to get to Harry Potter versus another for the blood he took to "resurrect" himself. Again, his vanity and arrogance lead him to take risks much like Harry Potter tries to take care of things 'his way' when faced with adversity--similar traits but the double-edged sword variety. So...who brewed the potion? Was it Ludo Bagman? How does he fit into all of this? He showed up late where the Ministry of Magic Wizards were in the forest in GOF after Crouch Jr. sent the skull and snake symbol into the sky, but he did not know what was going on, nor did the Ministry employees understand where he had been. He disappeared from the forest originally when the three (RHH) informed him that people were fleeing from the Death Eaters but obviously did not participate in stopping the Death Eaters from mistreating the Muggles--was he trying to find out WHY they were taking such a risk out in the open surrounded by such security (as if he is one of them) or is he just an Oaf? And was he appearing where the symbol had been cast from in the forest in search of other Death Eaters(or perhaps Voldemort himself?), and was then surprised to find Ministry employees there instead? Did Voldemort or Crouch state that the symbol was a call to his Death Eaters? A few unanswered questions I would like answered. do I have to wait for book six? P.S. Any clues from anyone the progress of Book Six? Am I obsessing? Am I AM I?!? (is that such a bad thing, really?) From topfor at aol.com Sun Jan 11 21:19:29 2004 From: topfor at aol.com (smtopliff) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:19:29 -0000 Subject: the Lovegoods Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88452 I see that the Diggorys and the Lovegoods live near one another--I have been listening to GOF an audio tape and when H,H, and the Weasleys were travelling via Portkey with the Diggorys to the Quiddich World Cup(chapter 3:the Portkey), Mr. Diggory replied to Arthur's query as to whether or not there were any other nearby wizards travelling by that Portkey that "No, the Lovegoods have been there for a week already"... So, if they reside near one another why did Ron not realize who Luna was? Even if he is a self-absorbed teenage boy (why would he notice she's just a girl anyway) does he not know who his neighboring wizards are? Of course this series is in Harryvision, not Ronvision, so perhaps it is not important. Or is it? From sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:31:37 2004 From: sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com (sarcasticmuppet) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:31:37 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88453 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > Hi, > Yeah, beauty can be inside, but I was specifically referring to, > physical beauty, attractiveness. I agree with what you said but that > doesn't detract from what I said. That, in HP novels, good male > characters can be physically beautiful but not the female ones. > The so called beautiful people might just have been airbrushed and > made up to look good but that can't take away from the fact that > some people can be physically attractive at some point in their lives > ( not all the time, granted). Physical beauty might not have the > value placed on it by today's advertising age but it still has some > value. > The issue acquires importance since, JKR persistently links > physical description to character. (Voldemort has a snake like face > etc.) If that is the case, what does the fact that only Bellatrix is > beautiful among all the female charcaters signify? That female > beauty is a trap, an outwardly attractive thing that is designed to > ensare innocent people? A well designed mask for horrible pursuit of > power? Good females in her world are jolly, smart and loving but not > beautiful and don't seem to care much about their appearances. So > those who do care are either bimbettes or are using it for some > ulterior motive? > It has been said in this discussion, that the author's depiction > of an uneven world doesn't imply sexism on the part of author. > However, I think this persistent denial of beauty to female > characters, does imply some kind of prejudice on the part of the > author. > > spangb You have to remember that these books are from Harry's point of view, and the only females he really describes as pretty/beautiful (aside from Bellatrix) are Cho Chang, Hermione, and Fleur Delacour. None of these are "bimbettes," and none of them are actively fighting on the dark side. Cho Chang is in Ravenclaw, so she possesses the cleverness necessary to personify that house. No bimbo there. Yes, she's a bit...twitty, but she IS sixteen, hormonal, and lost her first love (Cedric) under bad circumstances. Cut her some slack. Fleur Delacour, as a Beauxbatons champion, needed to be very intelligent to get through the tasks. Again, bimbo-esque qualities are absent. Hermione is the only one Harry has actually known for for an extended period of time, and though he only notices her as physically "pretty" in GoF, this is because HARRY didn't care about Hermione's looks until that point, not because HERMIONE didn't. Like I said in post 88388, Hermione's changes in appearance at the Yule Ball were due only to hair and clothing, which are not the true indicators of physical beauty. Harry asserts his opinion of Hermione's looks in OotP when he says "but you're not ugly" when Hermione was bushy haired and wearing her school uniform. From hermione978 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:23:38 2004 From: hermione978 at yahoo.com (hermione978) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:23:38 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88454 I have begun re reading the Harry Series for about the millioneth time and have noticed a few things again (some new) this time in the books that bring up questions that have yet to be answered. The first and second chapters of Harry Potter mentions the following: 1. HAGRID told MCGONAGALL about DUMBLEDORE being there to deliver HARRY. MCGONAGALL was all ready there ahead of all of them all day. Why? Was there suspected trouble coming or as a precaution? Was there something else? 2. A LARGE TAWNY OWL PASSED BY THE WINDOW on Privet Drive. Was someone else in the neighborhood getting an owl? Remember, Harry was still a baby in the first chapter and did'nt get any owl mail yet. 3. SCARS COME IN HANDY according to Dumbledore who makes reference to his own on his knee of the London Underground. Other than Harry's scar connects him in powers and knowledge of Voldemort is there another purpose with the scar that we don't yet know about? 4. Harry recalls being on the roof of the school and not knowing how he really got there. Does this mean Harry has ability to apparate and does not know it yet? Does this mean Voldemort can also apparate since their powers are somewhat similar? 5. There were three wizards mentioned.. who are they? A man in a purple bowler, a man (older) in a longer purple robe and an old woman in a long green robe. Who are these people that Harry met on the street in these chapters? 6. Who is Diggle? What significance is he? Just picking up on some things that seem like they should be relevant to the books later on and am searching for connections of these things in later books. It is something to think about.. and curious. From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 18:35:27 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:35:27 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88455 Marianne said > So it seems to be implied that wizards can transfigure themselves > into another life form. Which then begs the question, what's the big > deal with Animagi, if a wizard can transform himself into whatever > other animal he chooses? Unless what the Krum transformation shows > is that wizards can transform others into animals, ie, Fake!Malfoy > turning Draco into a ferret, but can only partially transform > themselves into other animals. > > Maybe we can convince JKR to put together a book, once the series is > over, that explains all the little details that we obsess about... Simple, Animagi transoform without the use of a wand. Mcgonagall can transorm whenever she wants, AT WILL. Krum would most likely have had to use a complicated potion, charm, etc. It is a usefull skill for the people with it: Wormtail's many escapes, Sirius's escape, etc. Andrew From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 11 21:42:28 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:42:28 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > "K" > Not really true. > ~~Traditionally, sunlight was not thought to kill vampires. In > medieval times, vampires were thought to be able to walk around just > as easily as humans during daylight. As literary vampirism increased, > so did the vampire's aversion to sunlight. In Dracula, Van Helsing > notes that the vampire can walk around by day, although he is not as > strong. However, modern film and novels have increasingly shown > vampires as vulnerable to sunlight, perhaps even mortally so.~~ June: Oh, I see, Snape is a MEDIAEVAL VAMPIRE. Well that certainly explains the costume, I suppose. I suspect you are moving the goalposts each time you consider the idea. > > June: > Which vampire tradition has daywalking > > Vampires? Do tell. > > "K" > European, worldwide, movies, literature. The usual. June: Not the usual as read by me. What movies, what books? Lets stick to the central eastern european vampire lore, shall we - otherwise we'll be getting into the oriental idea of dipping into the victim's spinal fluid or worse. Allow me to run through what I consider to be fairly central tenets to the vampire myth vis a vis Snape. 1. Blood drinking. No canon evidence for his doing this at any time. No listless pallid students - except as normal listless and pallid teenagers. The difference between teenagers and vampire victims? Very hard to call this one, I should know as mother of a teenager. Oh and spare me mention of the blood lollipops. "You've just mentioned them yourself June" "Oh have I? So I have!" 2. Eating and drinking. Vampires don't do it. At least not as I understand them. Snape spends a good part of his life in plain sight of a disinterested several hundred witnesses eating and drinking in the Great Hall at Hogwarts. He may not each much, but that's not proof enough. He doesn't eat at Grimmauld Place. Well having read the descriptions would it be your choice of dining room? 3. He does not go out to watch quidditch games muffled up to the eyes - but dressed as he normally does - indeed in POA he actually goes colourful for the only time in canon! 4. Garlic. Now this one I will grant but not for the same reasons. Aversion to garlic is not supported by canon but I WILL extrapolate from his general character that he is something of a little Englander. That means no mucked about foreign food. "Waiter take away that Poulet Basquaise and bring me a plain steak, well-done". 5. Running water. Not something a Potions Master can easily avoid. 6. Crucifix aversion - now that is not something that will easily arise in these stories. But you could argue that Hogwarts is crucifix free to avoid any nasty encounters for Snape - as instructed by Dumbledore perhaps? Oh, but wait, of course you are going to tell me that the Vampire Potion is what is enabling Snape to function! Well if you persist in invention as opposed to sifting canon evidence, what can I say? I'll stick to canon, ta. > > > > > > June: > > > Tweaking the conventions is one thing, chucking them all out of the > > window is quite another. > > "K" > She can tweak a werewolf but not a vampire? How about a wizard and a > giant having a half-giant. Now that's tweaking! June: Yes it is tweaking, whereas presenting a vampire controlled by potion who can walk around in daylight - that's throwing convention out of the window. > > June: > > If this is a vampire walking around in > > daytime, without problems, let's be honest and call him something > > different entirely. > > "K" > Like a Daywalker? Or a vampire? June: Call it what you like - a Daywalker is not a vampire or there'd be no need for a different name, and it's irrelevant since it doesn't matter what you call it - he isn't one. > > "K" > JKR can make a potion for a werewolf but she can't make one for a > half-vampire or a full vampire? > > June: > > Okay - tinkered in that respect. He still has most of the symptoms > > though. He still becomes a wolf at full moon. He takes on the > > appearance and behaviour of a wolf. Full scale tinkering would > > enable him to sprout wings and fly, perhaps, or still speak fluent > > english whilst transformed. The potion is a comparatively new > > development. > > "K" > Why can't Snape being hiding those things with a potion or something > else? June: See above. What is your point? My point is that there would be NO point to such a plot line. > > June: > > > Snape doesn't have problems fitting in because he's a vampire, he > > has problems fitting in because of his personality. > > "K" > > Says who? That's just a theory. Nor am I trying to excuse all of > Snape's actions on vampirism. June: Nope - his personality - that is canon. As exemplified by the Penseive scene, Sirius Black's remarks about "greasy oddballs" "Snivellus" etc, etc ad nauseam. > > June: > > If he is a vampire (and he isn't - just forget it Vampire!Snape > > fans) - he's certainly not going to be a LITTLE vampire. If I must > > accept Vampire!Snape - it'd sure better be BigVampire!Snape. > > > "K" > Who says Snape would be a LITTLE vampire. Surely you don't think > being a half-vampire would make him a LITTLE vampire? If he was born > that way then he would be a Dhampir and they are anything but little > vampires June: Please read my irony for meaning and context. What has Dhampir got to do with this? Why should that make anything little or big. Personally I don't particularly care if Dhampirs are 50 foot tall and have 180 foot wingspans like the Eagles in the Silmarillion (irony), or if they are in fact small enough to place in your jacket pocket without spoiling its line (more irony). And anyway the term little vampire was yours. I don't care what size any of them are, mainly because Snape isn't either one of them. > > June: > > > > Not to cover anything. Red herrings do not have to exist to cover > > other things. It's just a "let people suspect he is a vampire" > > thing, if they want. > > "K" > > Now that would be a cheap trick. It's one thing to give a red herring > to take our mind away from something important. It's another thing to > give us hints just to fool the reader about nothing. June: Cheap trick? Because it doesn't suit what you the reader wants to happen? Tell that to Sirius fans. She is the author and can place red herrings wherever she likes, I think. She can wipe out the entire cast of characters in the final chapter - her call. It's not a cheap trick if the (very slender to non-existent) evidence of Snape being a vampire - sweeping around in a cloak and that's it really - is being set up to divert certain readers into a false belief of what he is or set up a certain "what if". Anyway, it is fooling the reader about something - to make them think that Snape is a vampire, when he isn't. You can't call violation just because the author doesn't include your own theory in the final outturn. > > > June: > > > b. Tearing up the whole vampire canon just to make him one? > > "K" > Again, who says she is doing that? As others have said, it's not so > much readers wanting a vampire and trying to make Snape one. It's a > matter of the clues pointing to Snape. June: Cloak wearing doth not a vampire make. That't the only evidence there is. Essentially if vampire theorists have to either make up a potion, or come up with this Dhampir stuff to make it work, that seems to me a pretty broken down theory. I've yet to read a shred of convincing evidence for it. > > June: > I think making Snape a vampire > > would be an act of desperation by JKR. Far harder to write a > > tortured and damaged man. > > > "K" > I just don't understand why a tortured and damaged man can't be a > vampire. Are there no tortured and damaged werewolves, fairies, > giants, veelas, and so on? June: And therefore why does a tortured and damaged character HAVE TO BE a member of an exotic species? > > June: > And perhaps > > you believe the Death Eaters just get together to play darts in the > > appropriate Knockturn Alley pub? > > Where did that come from??? June: To answer the implication that he needs to be a vampire to make him menacing. He can convince me he's menacing as a human thanks very much. > > June: > Perhaps he is a keen killer, > > rapist and pillager. Psychotic nutter is good enough for me. > > > "K" > He could be. I would cease to like him if he were. June: I wouldn't. I'd still like the character because I judge him on his ability to interest me. That doesn't mean he has to be nice. If we were to judge him in acting terms the character acts everyone else out of the scenes he's in. That doesn't have to mean nice. I probably would not like Professor Snape were I to meet him in real life. I have actually worked with people like that in a University. They were interesting but I didn't like them. Characters in book do not have the power to make your working life hellish and therefore one can like them at a distance - as characters. > > June: > >I > > found Hannibal Lecter a thoroughly engrossing character -he was > > psychotic nutter enough and smart too. Characters do not have to > be > > fluffy to be entertaining. > > lol Since when are vampires fluffy? We do differ. I didn't find > Hannibal Lecter engrossing or intertaining. June: Please try to recognise my irony. I admit it is a fault I have, and I am taking lessons in saying nice things each day, to address it. > > > June: > > Oooh. None of these were original you know - I can direct anyone > to > > the appropriate bit of traditional folklore for these characters. > > She didn't make any of them up. Sure she tweaked some of the > > characteristics. And by the way, all the merpeople still live in > the > > water. > > "K" > It doesn't matter if she made them up or not. June: Well it matters to this discussion because on the one hand you are trying to make an argument for Vampire!Snape yet producing props to your theory that are not supported by canon, either in the HP universe, or by canon in the folklore you are arguing. Essentially, you are saying Snape is a Vampire though he does not follow any of the traditional rules that govern vampire behaviour, while equally providing a safety net for your theory - the "Vampire Potion" that means you can throw away all the rules. Here in the UK we call that "Having your cake and eating it" ;-) What I'm saying is why > can we have a story with loads of different creatures but heaven > forbid if the vampire made an appearance. June: I don't say "NO VAMPIRES" I just say no Vampire!Snape. If no vampires appear, speak to JKR not me. We all have things we want to happen. I want it to be proved that Snape loved Lily, that he did turn good before the fall of LV, and that he will redeem his human self in the end. However, I can live with the following: He went along to watch the murders at Godrics Hollow for nastiness and kicks, he has been a double double agent for LV all along, and his final murder of Harry is only averted by luck, or Harry's superior gifts. As long as he sounds good doing it. > > "K" > > We do all have hopes for the story. Yet IMO having Snape half- vampire > wouldn't take away from his human side at all. Yes it would it would - it would take away precisely half his human side. June Who earlier swore she would not get into the Vampire!Snape debate, because she was above that sort of thing. The road to hell... From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 11 21:52:09 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:52:09 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP In-Reply-To: <20040111134141.65565.qmail@web40811.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Melete-BlueAsrai wrote: > Melete: > I've also been thinking a great deal about the > small size of Harry. Really it seems to be brought up > enough so that we get this idea that Harry is fairly > small for his age...most likely from undernourishment. snip> > But his diminutive stature also > reflects a common characteristic of abused > children..that are either permanently stunted in > growth and sometimes even in voice or at least for a > longer period. Geoff: It is however recorded that "He was a skinny, black-haired, bespectacled boy who had the pinched, slightly unhealthy look of someone /who has grown a lot/ in a short space of time." (OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.7 UK edition) From n8fiq at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 20:53:10 2004 From: n8fiq at yahoo.com (Lynn Allen) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:53:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stereotypical Sexism In-Reply-To: <1073732924.9506.77534.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040111205310.63654.qmail@web60903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88458 > Laurence wrote: > > My point of view is that the space given for > > women in JKR's world is not better, and I would even say a little > > bit worse for what we have seen, than a European (or American) > > western country that I personally consider sexist. > > > Carol: > There may be elements of sexism in the WW, but that doesn't make JKR > herself an "inconscient" (unconscious?) sexist. It only means that the > WW is flawed by modern politically correct standards. These people > have House Elves as slaves, some of whom are badly mistreated. Lynn Allen: This may be slightly off the topic but as a first posting, I hope you all will be forgiving. On the topic of sexism, and in fact many other sociological trends, it has seemed to me that the WW would always be far behind Muggle traditions, primarily because lifespans are so much longer. Social change happens when generations change, and if we look at our own society's transitions, in the United States women have had the vote for less than 100 years, and the transition from an agricultural to an urban, technological culture in which women have more ability to perform "non-traditional" roles has taken place in much the same timeframe, roughly four generations in Muggle years. If wizards commonly live to 150, Dumbledore's reported age, social change would be much slower as the community elders would maintain their dominant roles far longer. In the case of house elf slavery, we still don't have a clear idea how long that institution or practice has gone on, but slavery in America has only been outlawed since approximately 1865, or six to seven generations if my arithmetic is correct. (You can of course argue that the social patterns underlying slavery have lingered far longer, but that's another topic altogether). Before we totally condemn the wizarding world for its treatment of other species/races, we may want to think about how hard those changes have been in our relatively short-lived Muggle world, and consider that Wizards are more conservative because of lifespan and culture. I would guess that Victorian British society is more obvious in the Wizarding World because so many wizards still live who were around in that era. In any case, it should not be terribly surprising that social change lags, even if we are disappointed in the WW institutions and traditions by today's standards. Of course the above statements are strictly my humble opinion and not based on Harry Potter canon. Comments or criticisms? Lynn __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From two_flower2 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 22:02:06 2004 From: two_flower2 at yahoo.com (two_flower2) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:02:06 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88459 Koinonia: > > "K" > > > > We do all have hopes for the story. Yet IMO having Snape half- > vampire > > wouldn't take away from his human side at all. > Then June: > Yes it would it would - it would take away precisely half his human > side. > > Why would it? Being a werewolf doesn't affect Lupin's humanity, after all. People do tend to be revealed as part (non)-humans in Potterverse, it's one of the threads that run through the series and I don't see why Snape should not be a part of this particular thread. As I see it, exotic species in Potterverse, just like in Discworld, is a metaphor for ethnic minority in real life. Two2 From derek at rhinobunny.com Sun Jan 11 21:43:53 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:43:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040111134204.02576b50@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88460 hermione978 wrote: >1. HAGRID told MCGONAGALL about DUMBLEDORE being there to deliver >HARRY. MCGONAGALL was all ready there ahead of all of them all day. >Why? Was there suspected trouble coming or as a precaution? Was >there something else? Derek: For that matter, why was McGonagall there at all? She didn't know about James and Lily (she had to ask Dumbledore whether it was true). If she didn't know that James and Lily were dead, that Harry had survived, etc., why was she staking out the Dursleys? - Derek From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 11 22:06:17 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:06:17 -0000 Subject: Mysterious Prophesies (was genealogy of HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arya" wrote: Arya: > However, if it is some DoM wizards cataloguing these prophesies then perhaps they are the > ones who cast a jinx upon the spheres to allow only the Dark Lord or Harry > Potter to pick it up. In this case, then the matter of who can touch the sphere > is not one of truth but of a wizard's interpretation. > Geoff: Interesting in the light of the following: "'It means,' said Dumbledore, 'that the person who has the only chance of conquering Lord Voldemort for good was born at the end of July, nearly sixteen years ago. This boy would be born to parents who had already defied Voldemort three times.' Harry felt as if something was closng in on him. His breathing seemed difficult again. 'It menas - me?' Dumbledore surveyed him for a moment through his glasses. 'The odd thing, Harry,' he said softly, 'is that it may not have meant you at all. Sybill's prophecy could have applied to two wizard boys, both born at the end of July that year, both of whom had parents in the Order of the Phoenix, both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times. One, of course, was you. The other was Neville Longbottom.' 'But then... but then, why was it my name on the prophecy and not Neville's?' 'The official record was re-labelled after Voldemort's attack on you as a child,' said Dumbledore. 'It seemed plain to the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy that Voldemort could only have tried to kill you because he knew you to be the one to whom Sybill was referring.'" (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.741/42 UK edition) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 22:12:27 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:12:27 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice Potion question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smtopliff" wrote: > I could not find specific discussion regarding the Polyjuice Potion > that Barty Crouch Jr. was using although I thought there had been-- > please enlighten me: > > > There is some ambiguity regarding the timeline prior to Moody's > attack by Crouch at the beginning of GOF snips So...who brewed the potion? > > Was it Ludo Bagman? How does he fit into all of this? more snipping Meri here: I always assumed (not that I even thought of this before you brought it up) that Wormtail brewed the potion. I am pretty sure that LV says something like Wormtail preformed some simple spells and brewed a potion to keep LV alive before his rebirth, so I always assumed that Wormtail had at least the talent to brew Polyjuice potion. After all, three second years in a girl's bathroom did it in CoS, so it can't be that hard for a fully qualified wizard and the Dark Lord to whip some up. And as to Ludo Bagman, I don't know what the things that Rita Skeeter knows about him that would make Hermione's hair curl (not that it needs it) are, but I don't get any sinister impressions from him at all. I think that he's too stupid to be evil and that his gambling is problem enough for JKR to resolve. Why did he react the way he did that night at the World Cup? I have no idea. (Maybe he thought the wizards doing the muggle torturing were going to come after him for rescinding on gambling debts ;)) But do I think that he's a DE? Not in a million years. Meri (who knows by now not to take any JKR character at face value, but can't help doing so with Ludo Bagman) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 22:16:52 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:16:52 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040111134204.02576b50@mail.rhinobunny.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Derek Hiemforth wrote: > hermione978 wrote: > >1. HAGRID told MCGONAGALL about DUMBLEDORE being there to deliver > >HARRY. MCGONAGALL was all ready there ahead of all of them all day. > >Why? Was there suspected trouble coming or as a precaution? Was > >there something else? > > Derek: > For that matter, why was McGonagall there at all? She didn't know > about James and Lily (she had to ask Dumbledore whether it was true). > If she didn't know that James and Lily were dead, that Harry had > survived, etc., why was she staking out the Dursleys? > > - Derek I think that she had heard rumors about what was going on, but wasn't going to *believe* anything until she heard it from DD himself. As to why she was st Privet Drive, I just assumed that she was and one of DD's most trusted confidants: he probably wanted to know if she could help. Meri From n8fiq at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:59:14 2004 From: n8fiq at yahoo.com (Lynn Allen) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasleys as heir of Slytherin In-Reply-To: <1073790851.9689.5356.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040111215914.98047.qmail@web60909.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88464 The arguments about specific wizards or witches being the heir of Slytherin (or Gryffindor, or any other prominent wizard of 1000 years ago) confuse me somewhat. They seem to hinge on the definition of the word "heir" which many of us seem to confuse with "descendent". Given how much inter-marriage there had been between purebred wizard families, after 1000 it would be logical that nearly all families would have some genetic connection to Slytherin, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, assuming they each had children. After 400 generations (assuming 25 years per generation), there would be only a small percentage of genetic inheritance from someone that far back, but most everyone would have some genes from Hogwarts' prominent founders. To me the issue of being someone's "heir" seems less based on direct lineage and more on selection based on commonality of personality and values unless I am way off base. Tom Riddle romaticized Slytherin and tried to follow in his footsteps, but probably had little more Slytherin genetic heritage than many other pureblood wizards. Thoughts? Lynn __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 11 22:23:43 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:23:43 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermione978" wrote: Hermione978: > 4. Harry recalls being on the roof of the school and not knowing how > he really got there. Does this mean Harry has ability to apparate > and does not know it yet? Does this mean Voldemort can also apparate > since their powers are somewhat similar Geoff: We have discussed the question of involuntary magic on umpteen occasions, from Aunt Marge to vanishing glass to re-growing hair. This one is always quoted. Perhaps apparating is an instinctive form of involuntary magic? Hermione978: > 6. Who is Diggle? What significance is he? Geoff: Interesting to know. Dedalus Diggle has been mentioned/seen at least four times I can quote off the top of my head; McGonagall suggests that he is responsible for the shooting stars in Kent (PS "The boy who lived" p.13 UK edition), the man in a violet top hat who bows to him - Diggle later confirms it was him - (PS "The vanishing glass" p.27 UK edition), in the "Leaky Cauldron" (PS "Diagon Alley" p.54-55 UK edition) and in the Dursley's kitchen (OOTP "The advance guard" p.49 UK edition). There may be others. For a very minor character, he seems to make a lot of cameo appearances.... I echo Hermione's question. What significance has he got? From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 11 22:31:48 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:31:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff References: Message-ID: <023001c3d892$b8705420$5659aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88466 June: > Oh, I see, Snape is a MEDIAEVAL VAMPIRE. Well that certainly > explains the costume, I suppose. > > I suspect you are moving the goalposts each time you consider the > idea. No, she's not, really. The problem is that vampirism isn't a pure, clear, established set of characteristics. It has varied over cultures, time periods, and (lately) artistic interpretation. I used to have a wonderful book, which Sheryll now has and which I need to replace, called "Vampires, Burial, and Death," by Paul Barber. I ***HIGHLY*** recommend this book. It is a superb analysis of vampire legends from several cultures (mostly, but not all, European, for most cultures have hostile undead legends), cross-referenced with an analysis of what happens to bodies when they decay. Bodies don't all decompose the same--it's affected by whether someone dies suddenly, after a long disease, etc. Vampire legends are attempts by people to account for these effects. This book is *fascinating.* Among other things, he draws a basic distinction between folkloric and Hollywood vampires. I believe this book was written before the "alternate lifestyle" vampires became so popular. Vampires, folkloric ones, don't drink blood. At least, it's very uncommon to find it associated with the legend. Folkloric vampires are associated with plague and sickness, and are drawn back to their nearest and dearest. Bram Stoker's Dracula was a step away from folkloric vampires. Hollywood vampires stepped further. And all the current "entertainment" vampires (Ann Rice, Buffy, etc.) are pretty much off the page from folkloric vampires. So depending on where a person is, and their cultural background, and what entertainment genres they prefer, you're going to get a different take on what a vampire even *is.* And then you're going to get that different take applied to the inarguably ambiguous canon about Snape. No *wonder* we can't agree. Our problem here is that we have no real idea what constitutes a vampire in JKR's world. What most of the "Snape is not a vampire" people lean on--what *I* lean on--is the evidence that when JKR uses a "pre-existing" magical creature, she tends to adhere to standard interpretations of them. To me, this tendency of hers tends to make me consider all the "part-vampire" theories invalid, because folkloric and "traditional Hollywood" vampires are either/or. Part isn't possible if you use *that* model for your vampires. However, even if you don't allow "part," there's still massive room for argument because of the broad range of "what makes a vampire" available amongst the different folkloric and "traditional Hollywood" variants. Until we have a clearer idea of what set of characteristics define JKR's vampires, all this is so much hot air. The only useful thing we can do at this point is comb through the canon for references and list a compilation, and compare Snape with those. Otherwise, it's statements of opinion. Which are fine until people get upset. > Lets stick to the central eastern european vampire lore, shall we - > otherwise we'll be getting into the oriental idea of dipping into > the victim's spinal fluid or worse. Allow me to run through what I > consider to be fairly central tenets to the vampire myth vis a vis > Snape. > > 1. Blood drinking. No canon evidence for his doing this at any > time. No listless pallid students - except as normal listless and > pallid teenagers. The difference between teenagers and vampire > victims? Very hard to call this one, I should know as mother of a > teenager. Oh and spare me mention of the blood lollipops. I think the play on words of "blood suckers"--which I, by the way, had *never* thought of and it put me on the floor--is priceless and likely enough reason for them lollipops to exist. I think we can give JKR that her vampires drink blood--so very few people know that blood-drinking was not associated with true folkloric vampires, that's probably a given. > 3. He does not go out to watch quidditch games muffled up to the > eyes - but dressed as he normally does - indeed in POA he actually > goes colourful for the only time in canon! I know, I love that Snape wears green for that. > June: > Cloak wearing doth not a vampire make. That't the only evidence > there is. Essentially if vampire theorists have to either make up a > potion, or come up with this Dhampir stuff to make it work, that > seems to me a pretty broken down theory. I've yet to read a shred > of convincing evidence for it. Actually, the combined list of "little hints" *is* pretty impressive. It has yet to convince me, because all of them have other little hints that seem to invalidate them, or other valid ways to explain them--but that is the skill of the writer. Snape is deliberately ambiguous, in just about all aspects except his preference for black and the state of his hair. If it proves to be true, and he *is* a vampire, the groundwork will have been skillfully laid, considering how it *can* be argued away. Based on the same evidence, there are people 100% convinced one way or the other, with justification. It doesn't fit into my personal "take" on the character, though. My objections to his being a vampire have more to do with overloading his character, overloading the story with semi- or former humans, and not allowing him to be a mess of *human* emotions, than any argument based on vampire characteristics. > June: > And therefore why does a tortured and damaged character HAVE TO BE a > member of an exotic species? See, that's still something we don't know. Lycanthropy has pretty well been established in JKR's world as a disease, as legend holds it. Werewolves are not another species; they are humans who are ill. We don't know yet if vampires are another species in her world, or if they are ill humans, or if they are dead humans. > We all have things we want to happen. I want it to be proved that > Snape loved Lily, that he did turn good before the fall of LV, and > that he will redeem his human self in the end. We already know your second desire. He did turn good before Voldemort's fall, or when would he have been a spy? ~Amanda, ancient Snapologist and advocate of Snape-loved-Lily From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 22:58:55 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:58:55 -0000 Subject: Filk: My Nanny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88467 This is a filk of the Sam Lewis-Joe Young-Walter Donaldson tune "My Mammy", as made famous by Al Jolson. Only the chorus is filked here I wish I could say that the supply of Aberforth filks has been exhausted, but, as Al Jolson himself would say, "I got a million of `em!" This filk is dedicated to Gail B. Some lines have purposely been left as they were in the original, so that I could deny having put them in the filk. You'll know the ones I mean. :) My Nanny SCENE: Aberforth again serenades his dear Nanny. ABERFORTH: Nanny, Nanny, The sun shines west, the sun shines east, I go where the sun shines least-- Nanny, My little Nanny, My heartstrings are tangled around your sweet fanny. I'm comin', Sorry that I made you wait. I'm comin', Hope and trust that I'm not late, oh oh oh Nanny, My little Nanny, I'd chant forbidden Charms For you in my arms, My Nanny! Oh oh oh... (SPOKEN) Nanny... My little Nanny. The sun shines west-- the sun shines east-- I know where-- the sun shines least! It's in my Nanny I'm talkin' about, nobody else's! (SUNG) My little Nanny, My heartstrings are tangled around Your sweet fanny. (SPOKEN) Nanny-- Nanny, I'm comin'-- I'm so sorry that I made you wait! Nanny-- Nanny, I'm comin'! Merlin, I hope I'm not late! Look at me, Nanny! Don't you know me? I'm your little Abby! (SUNG) I'd chant forbidden Charms for you in my arms, My Nanny! --Haggridd From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 22:59:20 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:59:20 -0000 Subject: the Lovegoods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smtopliff" wrote: > I see that the Diggorys and the Lovegoods live near one another--..., > Mr. Diggory replied to Arthur's query as to whether or not there were > any other nearby wizards travelling by that Portkey that "No, the > Lovegoods have been there for a week already"... So, if they reside > near one another why did Ron not realize who Luna was? ..edited... bboy_mn: Let's expand the quotation from that part of GoF, that way we can address your question and a problem that has been bothering me for a while. - - - Quote: GoF Am Ed HB pg 72 - - - "Long walk, Arthur?" Cedri's father asked. "Not too bad," said Mr. Weasley. "We live just on the other side of the village there. You?" --- pause quote --- Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley don't seem to know exactly were the other lives. --- quote continues - Mr. Diggory replies --- "Had to get up at TWO, didn't we, Ced? I tell you, I'll be glad when he's got his Apparition test. Still... not complaining... Quidditch World Cup, wouldn't miss it for a sackful of Galleons -- and the tickets cost about that. Mind you, looks like I got off easy..." Amos Diggory peered good-naturedly around at the three Weasley boys, Harry, Hermione, and Ginny. "All these yours, Arthur?" ---- pause quote ---- Cedric and his father Amos had to get up at 2am. I had assumed Harry and the Weasleys got up at the "crack of dawn" which would imply about 6am. The Weasleys ate breakfast and walked to the top of Stoatshead Hill; my guess is that the conversation at the top of the hill took place about 7:30am or more likely 8:00am. HOWEVER, when they arrive at the World Cup, the Ministry wizard announces their arrival as "...Seven past five from Stoatshead Hill..." (pg 74). That means I'm force to re-evaluate my timeline. I assumed they got up at 6am and arrived at 8am, backing this up in time to fit the arrival announcement. To leave the hill at 5am, they would have had to get up at about 3am, or possibly earlier. What am I getting at? It seems from the conversation that the Diggorys had much farther to go than the Weasley's, but from an analysis of the timeline, they appear to have had less than an hours difference in travel time. A man walks at about 3 miles per hour, however, the progress up the steep slope of Stoatshead Hill seemed very slow and it's unlikely that they moved at 3mph. Conclusion; Diggory's can't live more than about 3 miles farther away than the Weasleys. Given that the Weasleys walked from one side of the village to the other and the Diggorys make no mention of the village, they can't possibly live more than 6 or 7 miles apart. That is, unless someone can explain to me some method other than walking that the Diggorys used to get to the hill. I find this inconsistency far stranger than the Fawcets or the Lovegoods. --- quote continues on pg 73 --- ...Mr. Weasley pulling out his watch again. "Do you know whether we're waiting for any more, Amos?" "No, the Lovegoods have been ther for a week already and the Fawcetts couldn't get tickets," said Mr. Diggory. "There aren't any more of us in this area, are there?" "Not that I know of," said Mr. Weasley. "Yes, it's a minute off... We'd better get ready...." - - - End Quote - - - Now regarding the Fawcetts, the Lovegoods, and your original question. Why doesn't Ron realize who Luna is? At this point Harry and Ron have been at the school with these students for five years, and there are many students that neither of them know. They have had class with Slytherins since the beginning, but there are Slytherins in their Care of Magical Creatures class who's name Harry doesn't know. It seems reasonable that both Harry and Ron are familiar with these students, they are students they have seen in school and at Diagon Alley when everyone is buying their books and supplies, but never have had an opportunity to socialize with them in any way, they are not familiar with their names. Ron may recognise Luna, who is in a different year and a different house, but never had occassion to talk to her or talk about her. Ron would probably only know Luna if the Lovegood and the Weasley had known each other socially. If the families had mixed, then Ron would have been familiar with her. I will also note that the Weasleys live on a farm. Most kids who live on a farm, especially if they come from big families, learn how to entertain themselves. They don't necessarily mix that much outside of school because the distance is too great. When Ron and Ginny were small (pre-school) they had brothers to play with on the farm, and when the brothers were off to school they had each other to play with, and a great big safe countryside as their playground. Other points, we can reasonably assume that the Lovegoods who live /somewhat/ near Ottery St. Catchpole are related to Luna, but they aren't necessarily her parents; could be grandparents, or aunt/uncle. So knowing these Lovegoods wouldn't necessarily mean that Ron would know /those/ Lovegoods. In a way though, distance doesn't mean much to wizards. Even underage wizards via Floo can travel hundreds of mile before we could even get out to the garage and get our car started. So close or far, Ron would not know other wizards and their kids well unless the Weasley socialized with them in some fashion. This ease of traveling hundreds of miles effortlessly, can just as easily be isolating as bringing wizards closer together. Just a few thoughts; though to what point I'm not sure. bboy_mn From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 11 23:13:41 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:13:41 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > June: > Oh, I see, Snape is a MEDIAEVAL VAMPIRE. Well that certainly > explains the costume, I suppose. > > I suspect you are moving the goalposts each time you consider the > idea. "K" How did I do that? I could if I wanted. For instance, the Albanian vampire wears high heels. I'll have to see if I can figure out a way to connect that with Voldemort. Have we ever seen his feet? Have we ever looked in Snape's closet? June: > Lets stick to the central eastern european vampire lore, "K" I was. June: > 1. Blood drinking. No canon evidence for his doing this at any > time. "K" Honestly. Do you really expect JKR to show us that? Especially when it needs to be kept secret? June: >No listless pallid students - except as normal listless and > pallid teenagers. The difference between teenagers and vampire > victims? Very hard to call this one, I should know as mother of a > teenager. "K" Fantasy. Not real teenage life. June: >Oh and spare me mention of the blood lollipops. "K" Why? It's in the books. 2. Eating and drinking. "K" I won't bother with the rest. Been through it all before. June: >Oh, but wait, of course you are going to tell me that the Vampire >Potion is what is enabling Snape to function! Well if you persist >in invention as opposed to sifting canon evidence, what can I say? >I'll stick to canon, ta. "K" It's a theory. Just one theory. Maybe we see Lupin taking a potion to show us that indeed it is possible to control certain traits. That is canon. > June: > Yes it is tweaking, whereas presenting a vampire controlled by > potion who can walk around in daylight - that's throwing convention > out of the window. "K" Sorry. Don't agree. June: > My point is that there would be NO point to such a plot line. "K" Oh I think there is. JKR has a way of holding out the most important stuff for last. We actually know so little of Snape, Riddle, Lily, or James, to name a few. And of vampires. Why oh why has she not shown them to us? > June: > Nope - his personality - that is canon. As exemplified by the > Penseive scene, Sirius Black's remarks about "greasy > oddballs" "Snivellus" etc, etc ad nauseam. "K" Yes. His personality is canon. But what exactly made him that way? > June: > Please read my irony for meaning and context. What has Dhampir got > to do with this? Why should that make anything little or big. > Personally I don't particularly care if Dhampirs are 50 foot tall > and have 180 foot wingspans like the Eagles in the Silmarillion > (irony), or if they are in fact small enough to place in your > jacket pocket without spoiling its line (more irony). And anyway > the term little vampire was yours. "K" I love reading the views of others on this board. Even those I don't agree with. One thing I try to do is keep an open mind. I'm quite aware many of my theories will be proved wrong. But, I try my best not to be rude. (Yeah, I have failed at times). I won't bother answering the above. > June: > Cheap trick? Because it doesn't suit what you the reader wants to > happen? "K" It doesn't have anything to do with what I want. Personally, it would be great to see Snape as some type of vampire but I sure won't lose any sleep over it if he isn't. June: It's not > a cheap trick if the (very slender to non-existent) evidence of > Snape being a vampire - sweeping around in a cloak and that's it > really - "K" Did you ever read Pippin's theory? June: > Anyway, it is fooling the reader about something - to make them > think that Snape is a vampire, when he isn't. "K" JKR is a better writer than that. > > June: > Please try to recognise my irony. I admit it is a fault I have, > and I am taking lessons in saying nice things each day, to address > it. "K" No comment. > > June: > Well it matters to this discussion because on the one hand you are > trying to make an argument for Vampire!Snape yet producing props to > your theory that are not supported by canon, either in the HP > universe, or by canon in the folklore you are arguing. "K" I try to use canon only. If it isn't canon I state so. Actually, in my posts as of today, I have not given very many arguments why I think Snape is a vampire or half-vampire. June: > Essentially, you are saying Snape is a Vampire though he does not > follow any of the traditional rules that govern vampire behaviour, > while equally providing a safety net for your theory - the "Vampire > Potion" that means you can throw away all the rules. Here in the UK > we call that "Having your cake and eating it" ;-) "K" Oh no June. I'm not saying that Snape doesn't follow the so-called traditional vampire at all. I'm saying you just don't see most of it, but if you are willing to look close enough you will find hints. We will just have to disagree on the potion theory. It's only a theory and that is what we do here, isn't it? After all, it's not as if I originally came up with the idea of potions being able to do many different things. JKR did that. >June: > However, I can live with the following: > > He went along to watch the murders at Godrics Hollow for nastiness > and kicks, he has been a double double agent for LV all along, and > his final murder of Harry is only averted by luck, or Harry's > superior gifts. > > As long as he sounds good doing it. "K" All of that is possible. I hope it's not. I don't like evil people. > > June > Who earlier swore she would not get into the Vampire!Snape debate, > because she was above that sort of thing. The road to hell... "K" No, no, no! The road to hell is the Lily/Snape theory. I stay off that awful road for the most part. From przepla at ipartner.com.pl Sun Jan 11 23:20:13 2004 From: przepla at ipartner.com.pl (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:20:13 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the Lovegoods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4001DA2D.7000202@ipartner.com.pl> No: HPFGUIDX 88470 On 2004-01-11 22:19, smtopliff wrote: >I see that the Diggorys and the Lovegoods live near one another--I >have been listening to GOF an audio tape and when H,H, and the >Weasleys were travelling via Portkey with the Diggorys to the >Quiddich World Cup(chapter 3:the Portkey), Mr. Diggory replied to >Arthur's query as to whether or not there were any other nearby >wizards travelling by that Portkey that "No, the Lovegoods have been >there for a week already"... So, if they reside near one another why >did Ron not realize who Luna was? Even if he is a self-absorbed >teenage boy (why would he notice she's just a girl anyway) does he >not know who his neighboring wizards are? Of course this series is >in Harryvision, not Ronvision, so perhaps it is not important. Or is >it? > > > As a matter of fact I was unable to find quote supporting the fact that Ron didn't realize who Luna is. When Harry (and Neville for that matter) was introduced to Luna, Ron and Hermione were in the prefect's carriage. When later they came back to Harry, they didn't asked for Luna's name, and she wasn't introduced to them. Not surprising, giving the fact that Ron knew Luna as his neighbor and Hermione seems to know a lot more Hogwart's students than boys. Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki There is nobody so irritating as somebody with less intelligence and more sense than we have. (Don Herold) From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 12 00:56:08 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:56:08 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88471 Geoff wrote Dedalus Diggle has been mentioned/seen at least > four times There may be others. For a very minor character, he seems to make a lot of cameo appearances.... I echo Hermione's question. What significance has he got? Berit replies: Who knows; maybe he'll be the new DADA teacher in book 6... :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 12 01:09:55 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:09:55 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as heir of Slytherin In-Reply-To: <20040111215914.98047.qmail@web60909.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88472 Lynn wrote: To me the issue of being someone's "heir" seems > less based on direct lineage and more on selection > based on commonality of personality and values unless > I am way off base. Tom Riddle romaticized Slytherin > and tried to follow in his footsteps, but probably had > little more Slytherin genetic heritage than many other > pureblood wizards. > Berit replies: I'm with you. I believe the "heir-thing" is a lot more than just a matter of heritage and direct lineage/being a descendant. To Salazar Slytherin it would probably matter more whether his Heir as such continued the Slytherin house's grand heritage of values and traditions, than in which way the heir was related to him... Voldemort claims to be the rightful heir of Slytherin. I'm sure he believes he upholds the Slytherin name the way Salazar would have wanted to. But does he? Maybe he's violating the Slytherin name rather than upholding it? Maybe there's someone else who would uphold the Slytherin name better than Voldie does at the present? My hunch is that one of Rowling's intentions in the HP tale is to finally heal the broken friendship between Slytherin and Gryffindor; they were, after all, best friends a thousand years ago... I think the TRUE heir of Slytherin would want to mend that friendship. It's late, I'm probably raving :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 12 01:23:30 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:23:30 -0000 Subject: sexism/discussion questions/PLUMBING!/shark Transfiguration/vanishFood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88473 Laurence de Bergerac (Cyrano?) wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88302 : << Where are Mr Sprout, Mr Mac McGonagall, Monsieur Pince? >> All the relationships and all the names in square brackets are NOT CANON, just my own opinion: Professor [Beatrix] Sprout is a great-grandmother. Her husband [Ben Sprout], spends the school year exploring distant places to discover new magical plants, but spends the summer holiday with her at their beachside cottage. Minerva McGonagall and [Hieronyma Horatia] Hooch have been a couple since they were in their early 20s, but are discreet about it. Madam Poppy Pomfrey, also a great-grandmother, is a widow; perhaps her husband [Herb Pomfrey] was killed in the first Bad Years (Voldemort Reign of Terror). It is she, not Minerva, who has something from a mild flirtation to a secret affair with Dumbledore. (Who, by the way, is to me a great-great-grandfather, three times a widower, and bi-sexual. His first two wives, Muggles, each died of old age, and his third, DADA prof at Hogwarts when he was Transfiguration prof, was killed by the Dark Wizard Grindelwald.) I haven't given much thought to Madam Pince, other than to *assume* she and any husband she might have are British, not Monsieur. << Where are their children? (don't know you, but there was always a son, a niece, a cousin, of the professors in my school, especially if Hogwart is the only magical school). >> Their descendents who are current students have different surnames, or are in different Houses so that Harry has never noticed their surnames. Lynn Allen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88458 : << On the topic of sexism, and in fact many other sociological trends, it has seemed to me that the WW would always be far behind Muggle traditions, primarily because lifespans are so much longer. Social change happens when generations change, (snip) the transition from an agricultural to an urban, technological culture in which women have more ability to perform "non-traditional" roles >> I quite agree with you about the Wizarding World being extremely conservative by Muggle standards ... they still wear Medieval clothing styles and are just entering the Victorian beginning of mass production (QTTA tells of broomstick production moving from hand-made artisanal uniqueness to brand names) ... they haven't figured out 'the rule of law' yet ... But I believe that the wizarding world was MILLENIA AHEAD of the Muggle world in matters of sexism. Because the wizarding folk had MAGIC, which means: 1) the greater physical strength of males is irrelevant to who wins battles 2) infant mortality is so low that families don't need to have many children just to ensure that a few survive 3) they've had contraceptive magic since forever, which together with (2) means witches spend only a small part of their life pregnant and nursing babies 4) they transititioned form an agricultural to a dense (due to Apparation, Floo, etc, neighbors and shops are as available to country folk as to city folk) and magi-nological economy and culture LONG ago. ["urban and technological" = "dense and magi-nological"]. Lynn Allen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88464 : << After 400 generations (assuming 25 years per generation), there would be only a small percentage of genetic inheritance from someone that far back, but most everyone would have some genes from Hogwarts' prominent founders. >> With the minor exception that I think that proud old Dark Magic families would have a higher concentration than average of Slytherin genes: not only do we know that they in-breed, but I imagine that they consider 'descended from Salazar Slytherin' to be as important as 'has money' and 'is a good housekeeper' when arranging marriages. I imagine Malfoys, Snapes, Blacks, Rookwoods, and Lestranges all boasting of their descent from old Salazar. Btw, I think the average generation would be longer than 25 years, because of the longer lifespan of wizarding folk ... I am sure it goes with a longer span of fertility for witches ... so they have the option of spacing their children: one at age 20, one at age 40, one at age 60. << To me the issue of being someone's "heir" seems less based on direct lineage and more on selection based on commonality of personality and values unless I am way off base. Tom Riddle romaticized Slytherin and tried to follow in his footsteps, but probably had little more Slytherin genetic heritage than many other pureblood wizards. >> I agree, but we're trapped with Dumbledore's statement that "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort -- who is the last remaining ancestor of Salazar Slytherin -- can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar." That's the dramatic explanation scene of CoS, and "ancestor" has been changed to "descendent" in some printings (alas for time travel theorists, JKR has acknowledged that it's s'posed to be 'descendent'). Why did Dumbledore throw in the unneccessary detail that Voldie 'is the last remaining descendent of Salazar Slytherin' when he could have just said 'is a descendent of Salazar Slytherin'? Abigail Nus posed WONDERFUL Discussion Questions in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88305 : << 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better choice? >> My expectation had been that Dumbledore would choose NEVILLE as the prefect, in an attempt to make him more assertive and proactive. I think Neville would have *hated* that -- perhaps when he opened the letter, he would have a first surprised flicker of joy that Dumbledore thought well of him and that Gran would be happy, but it would immediately be replaced by unhappiness that this honor/burden would force him to draw attention to himself. Dumbledore knew that Ron wanted to be prefect -- besides knowing all his students well, he knows what Ron saw in the Mirror of Erised -- and I believe that he knows Molly well enough to know how she reacts to her children being or not being chosen as prefect. Perhaps he chose Ron rather than Neville as an act of kindness to Ron, or to both Ron and Neville. I don't know why not Seamus or Dean. We don't know them well enough to know if they do or don't want the job or whether they'd be good at it. << 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? >> It's a response to the fans -- fans have made up so much fanfic (and perhaps also written letters of inquiry to her) about the original Order, with knowledge only that three families killed were Bones, MacKinnons, and Prewetts, that she deigned to enlighten our ignorance. I'm bitter about it, because in *my* fanfic, the Prewetts were a married couple, not brothers. << 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the coming war? >> Molly is ashamed of her fear because JKR writes with a 'manly' view of life, and people with that viewpoint believe that showing fear is a character defect. She doesn't want Arthur told because she knows he has enough to worry him already, poor dear, without worrying about his wife's mere *feelings*. Molly is especially ashamed that she was defeated by a boggart, a creature that any third-year in Lupin's DADA class (and maybe first-years with proper DADA teachers, according to Snape's rant) is supposed to be trained to defeat. Steve bboy_mn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88447 : << How many people do you think we will find who agree with US that Percy and Ron are very much a like? >> They are somewhat alike, both desiring prestigeous accomplishments, but they are different in at least two ways: Percy is hard-working and Ron has a sense of humor. I agree that Ron isn't all that much like the Twins. Do you think the personalities go with the body types: Bill is tall and thin like Percy and Ron, do you think he was an approval seeker? Charlie is wide and muscular like Fred and George, do you think he was big-time scofflaw and a bit of a bully? Ginny's personality in OoP seems more like Fred and George than like Percy or even Ron, does that mean she'll grow up to be short and dumpy like Molly? Of course, in one's teens, that body type can be more cute (short) and voluptuous (dumpy). If so, how did Molly get a personality transplant? And Arthur get comfortable with no one admiring him, no one approving of him except himself, his wife, and perhaps Dumbledore? << most notably, I think they are both STUBBORN as mules. >> Is there any evidence of any Weasley who is NOT as stubborn as a mule? Geoff Bannister wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88351 : << That tap could not be an original piece of Hogwarts plumbing because taps weren't around a thousand years ago. >> Taps were around LONGER than 1000 years ago --- the Romans had them. Anyway, it is IRRELEVANT when MUGGLES had various plumbing abilities, as we are discussing wizards. As others have already posted (but I feel so strongly on this subject that I'm chiming in anyway), the wizarding folk can have invented 1930-s British institutional style lavatories LONG before Muggles learned to imitate them. Here comes my rant: I believe that Potterverse wizarding folk have had late twentieth century indoor plumbing and Renaissance 'replica' castles since back before Atlantis sank. They didn't need to know any plumbing, hydraulics, metallurgy, stonecarving, or architecture because they made their bathrooms and castles by MAGIC! However, Muggles who visted wizards and saw the nice things the wizards had, had to invent all that technology in order to imitate the wizarding goodies. There is a long history of Muggles trying to imitate wizarding plumbing: Minoan, Classical Roman, etc. The wizarding folk teach their children a lot of self-enhancing falsehoods. For example, they teach their children that the reason to keep magic secret from Muggles is to avoid being pestered by Muggles wanting favors (and Hagrid, not having completed his education, still believes that), when in reality the wizarding folk went into hiding because they were scared of the Muggles attacking them. Another example is that they teach their children that Muggles use technology to imitate what wizards do by magic. Technology probably *started* that way, Muggles trying to figure out how to make bathrooms and castles and swords like the wizards had ... this may have remained true up to the Steam Age, with Muggles inventing horseless carriages to imitate the horseless carriages that carry students from Hogsmeade Station to Hogwarts, inventing railroads to imitate wizarding self-propelled wagons like at Gringotts, gaslight to imitate the magical self-lighting candles on the wall of wizarding houses ... but by then the discovery and invention of science and technology had become self-propelling themselves, and with Electricity, Muggles went on to invent things that the wizarding folk copy. The Wizarding Wireless Network is obviously an imitation of Muggle radio, because it's named after "wireles", the British Muggle name for radio. The wizarding folk would have no other reason to name it "wireless", because they didn't have a preceeding technology named "wire" (the telegraph). Taryn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfor Grownups/message/88442 : << I'll give the following quote from Quidditch through the Ages: "No spell yet devised enables wizards to fly unaided in human form. Those few Animagi who transform into winged creatures may enjoy flight, but they are a rarity. The witch of wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." (American hardback, pg. 1) So it seems answered that when a person is TRANSFIGURED into an animal, they also retain the animal's brain, which is certainly detrimental. This is opposed to Animagi, who seem to retain their mind. For the most part, anyway, as we must remember Sirius talking about how his emotions were simpler when in dog form, so he could slip past the Dementors. But it seems a very dramatic difference between the two. >> This is a forbidden "I AGREE!!" post! Constance Vigilance wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88443: << Which makes one wonder why Krum would choose to become a *shark*!! He might have *eaten* Hermione instead of rescuing her. Why not a cute dolphin or something, not only not as lethal, but smarter, too! >> This is a forbidden "LOL!" post. But I suppose that JKR had her reasons ... Krum is more able to Transfigure himself into a shark than a dolphin because he is really a bloodthirsty and stupid DarkSider despite his good taste in beloved girls ... or because he is part-shark and that's why he could have a morning swim in the frozen lake ... Durmstrang teaches self-Transfiguration into sharks not dolphins because Durmstrang is evil ... Steve bboy_mn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88444 : << In an interview JKR said that objects that are conjured (creating something from nothing) aren't permanent, eventually they revert back to nothing. That's why you can't create food by conjuring it. Well, you can create the food and eat it, but in an hour or so the food vanishes and you eventually starve. >> Two-thirds of USAmericans would pay EXTRA for diet food like that! Why so so many witches and wizards ... Mrs Weasley, Professor Sprout, and Madam Malkin spring to mind, but IIRC JKR has also mentioned portly males ... allow themselves to remain chubby when they have the power to themselves create food items that would allow to them diet without deprivation! From owlery2003 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 01:42:07 2004 From: owlery2003 at yahoo.com (Scott Santangelo) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:42:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Polyjuice Potion question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040112014207.22980.qmail@web60110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88474 Not exactly a follow-up to the thoughts in the prior posts, but a polyjuice question, just the same. I thought the potion was thick and glutinous, and that HRH drank a glass-full each to effect their transformations in COS. Barty Jr. has a flask-full from which he takes frequent swigs. It would seem a difficult potion to transfer to a flask, much less "swig" from . . . I guess it's possible, but it seemed odd. owlery2003 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CoyotesChild at charter.net Mon Jan 12 02:09:07 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:09:07 -0600 Subject: Socks Message-ID: <000001c3d8b1$0f6b3100$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88475 Iggy de-cloaking for a minute: I have an interesting question here... What's JKR's fixation with socks? She has placed a more important emphasis on them than any other article of clothing... Dumbledore claims to see them in the mirror. Dobby is set free by one and has them as his primary attire. Harry wraps his sneakoscope in one. When Tonks packs Harry's trunk, she mentions that her mother can get them to fold themselves... but the one she waves her wand at just twitches. Molly fusses over Harry's socks. I am sure that there's a lot more instances of them being mentioned... but that's all I can pull off the top of my head. Any ideas/comments? Iggy McSnurd From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 02:28:04 2004 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (Cristina Guerrero) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape a vampire? Different explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040112022804.12714.qmail@web12504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88476 Hi, Uh, could someone please tell me whats a Goth? And how does it relate to Snape? Never heard that word before. Thanks Sharana --- Diana Walter wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" > wrote: > > No, I don't think for one second that Snape's a > vampire. > > > > There's a perfectly reasonable alternate > explanation for his > behavior. > > > > He's a Goth. > > Me: > You know, I hadn't been thinking about it as an > explanation for his > vampire-like traits, but while I was reading the > Pensieve scene I > pictured him as a Goth (with a striking resemblance > to a friend of my > brother's), and the image really clicked. Then I > pictured his adult > self as a Goth-grown-up. It was incredible; Snape > had never seemed so > real to me. So, while I'm not making any definitive > statements about > what Snape is or isn't, I do think this particular > way of viewing him > really helps his attitutes and relationships with > everyone make sense. > --daw > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 03:05:46 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:05:46 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood a transfigured McGonagall, or worse yet--a house elf? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88477 I'm ready to be attacked by everyone but I've been thinking that if I were a Professor at Hogwarts the easiest way for me to keep an eye on the kids would be to be one of them. Luna is a very interesting character--one that has just appeared in the series--could she be Minerva? DD and Minerva both taught/teach Transfiguration, a skill that the OOTP adults have yet to use. I recently posted a theory that Luna Lovegood might be a Seer because of some of her interesting behavior in OOTP. Could this character instead be Minerva, or better yet, a house elf? The description of Luna is that she has protuberant eyes that always look as though she is surprised--remind you of a certain elf? Luna does wear some unusual things--something I could see Dobby wearing! From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 12 03:14:42 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:14:42 -0000 Subject: Snape a vampire? Different explanation In-Reply-To: <20040112022804.12714.qmail@web12504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cristina Guerrero wrote: > Hi, > > Uh, could someone please tell me what?s a Goth? And > how does it relate to Snape? Never heard that word > before. I used One-Look Dictionary at http://www.onelook.com/index.html to find this Wikipedia article: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goth which begins (with tons of hyperlinks): "This article is about the contemporary goth movement. For the Germanic tribes, see the Goths. Goth is a modern popular subculture that gained visibility in the punk era in the 1970s. It is often associated with a particular style of music and a "uniform" that goes with it, typically all black with velvet and leather being two primary materials worn. (snip) Some claim that goth is defined by androgyny, black clothes, black hair dye, death, darkness, depression, heavy makeup, horror (inspired by fiction and film), Nihilism, sensuality, silver jewellery or any number of other things. Others protest that these categories are stereotypical and generally cause more harm than good. (snip) It is also debatable as to whether goth is really a subculture, since such a thing is characterised by unified beliefs and outlook, whereas goth is characterised by divergent beliefs and outlook. (snip) In referring to goth as a whole it is easier to call it a movement, driven by gothic fashion and gothic rock, its members exhibiting a general taste for a dark, supernatural aesthetic. Table of contents [showhide] 1 Timeline of goth 2 Goth music 3 Goth music in the nineties 4 External links From erinellii at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 03:16:28 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:16:28 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88479 "tlpbupu" wrote: > The Slytherins are not the only ones who know anything about the > COS. Hermione says that all the copies of "Hogwarts a History" have > been taken out and she left her copy at home. She says that she > wants it to read up on the legend of the COS. So really anyone > could read about it. Erin: Actually, I don't believe that "Hogwarts: A History" contains the legend of the Chamber at all. Why not? Because Hermione can't remember it. This is the girl who literally learns entire textbooks by heart. I'd give examples, but I don't think it's necessary on this list. She does admit to having memorized all her coursebooks in chapter six of PS/SS. Throughout the series, she *constantly* refers to facts from "Hogwarts: A History". And now, when it comes to this one very important piece of information, she can't remember? Nope. Not buying it. Even if Hermione wasn't the super-brain we know and love, there are a couple of OTHER reasons why she should have remembered the Chamber, if she had read about it in a book. For one thing, it involves a big, scary monster. Right in the castle where she was going to be living. That's the kind of thing that an 11-year-old, especially an 11-year-old who's just found out that monsters and ghosts are real, wouldn't easily forget. Even if she didn't think that the legend had any basis in fact, it's still the kind of thing that would tend to stick out in one's mind. But, if that hadn't done it, then the whole muggleborn aspect should have. Hermione may not actually learn the word "mudblood" until her second year, but as a muggleborn, and as widely read as she is, she must be aware that there is some predjudice against her kind. And we saw how much that matters to her all throughout CoS. So if "Hogwarts: A History" had told the full story, had pointed out that Salazar Slytherin had not only wanted to exclude muggleborns but was actively seeking to *kill* them, Hermione would have remembered it. She just would have. Hermione herself has called the book a highly selective and biased history which glosses over the nastier aspects of the school. If the author of the book didn't see fit to include House-Elves, why shouldn't the Chamber have been glossed over as well? My guess is that if there is any mention of the Chamber at all (and there probably is, because Hermione seems to think *something* is in there), it is probably a throwawy reference like "Reports of a secret 'Room of Requirement' are as false as the rumors of a secret chamber built by Slytherin." So, my best guess is that those who checked out the book were disappointed. If the legend really *had* been in there, it would have been all over the school in no time, and Professor Binns' class wouldn't have been so interested in what he had to say. So, my question still stands. Where *did* Bill get his information from? Erin From artcase at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 03:58:07 2004 From: artcase at yahoo.com (artcase) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:58:07 -0000 Subject: Brewing fortune, the real reason Lucious can bribe the Ministry. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88480 Art here: Going out on a limb to believe conjuring of money or gaining wealth through dark magic (which, I am almost certain Lucious did) would come with a curse attached. He therefore would want to rid himself of such ill-gained wealth as quickly as possible. What better way than to "give" Fudge and others (like the wizards on the board of Hogwarts, etc.) money to gain their favor. Now the sticky part. What happens to the people that have accepted his money? I'm envisioning all sorts of nasty and mischievious mishaps. From cristina at prodigy.net Mon Jan 12 04:02:10 2004 From: cristina at prodigy.net (crisagi1) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:02:10 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood a transfigured McGonagall, or worse yet--a house elf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > I'm ready to be attacked by everyone but I've been thinking that if I were a Professor at Hogwarts the easiest way for me to keep an eye on the kids would be to be one of them. ME: Interesting theory. But there are too many indiscrepincies to ignore in this theory. Luna is in Ginny's year, and she, Ginny, seems to know who she is. Also, why would they hook her up with the trio after 4 years, and not from the begining of her tenure at Hogwarts? She could have befriended Ginny and kept close with the rest of them. Plus she is in Ravenclaw. If it were McGonnagal, or a house elf, they would have been able to fool the other students, but not the sorting hat. Besides, Tonks is the only metamorphmagus we have met so far in the series. She, Tonks, says that metamorphmagus are born not made, and they need to be registered. McGonnagal I believe is too much by the book to not register herself if she were one. She did after all register herself as an animagimus. As for being a house elf, I just can't see Dobby transforming himself into a human. If he did, I think he wouldn't want to go back to being a house elf. There is little enough respect for house elves with out being a 'freed' elf. There are also numerous references in OOTP to support that Luna is who she says she is. Her father is after all the editor of The Quibbler. She gets her father to print the article Rita S. wrote. Also, Mcgonnagal is lying in St Mungo's after being attacked by Umbridges' minions when the 6 students went to the Ministry of Magic to save Sirius, Luna included. There are just too many holes in the theory for me to be able to support it. Sorry From david_p at istop.com Mon Jan 12 04:40:02 2004 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:40:02 -0000 Subject: Socks In-Reply-To: <000001c3d8b1$0f6b3100$4e60bf44@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Iggy McSnurd" wrote: > Iggy de-cloaking for a minute: > > I have an interesting question here... What's JKR's fixation with socks? Good question - and you're not the only one to notice this. The Harry Potter Lexicon has a Socks Section at: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/socks.html It hasn't been updated since OoP came out, but it's still worth a look. David P. (returning to lurk mode) From strom5150 at charter.net Mon Jan 12 03:44:11 2004 From: strom5150 at charter.net (Danielle) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:44:11 -0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88483 Kneasy wrote (heavily snipped): > > Fair do's; I've offered arguments as to why Snape isn't a vampire. > > Now it's your turn; show me why Voldy isn't. I've read other posts comparing Voldy to a vampire, and your post sums up all of those points nicely. So, I have nothing from canon to offer you proving he's not one. I only offer to use your own anti-Snape!Vampire argument against you: In what way would Voldy being a vampire aid or enhance the plot of the books at this point? And why, if Snape should be a human with human motivations for his nastiness, etc. instead of a vampire, is this not also true for Voldy? He is, or was, human. And Tom Riddle proved that Voldy's evilness was brewing nicely while he was still fully human. So, why a vampire now? Danielle From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 04:06:07 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:06:07 -0000 Subject: Snape a vampire? Different explanation In-Reply-To: <20040112022804.12714.qmail@web12504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88484 > Hi, > > Uh, could someone please tell me what?s a Goth? And > how does it relate to Snape? Never heard that word > before. > > Thanks > > Sharana In short summary, compared to the other rather lengthy reply. A goth typically, viewed by the younger generation (me-as I am a teenager), without the use of a book, or dictionary, is basically a person that is fixated with death AND/OR a person pale in complection that has dark hair and wears dark clothes (sometimes dark makeup) AND/OR a punk (punk music, punk clothes). These goths ussually distance themselves from the main-stream culture at school etc. Typically they form small groups, and strongly resent the 'popular' people of the school, even without having the 'popular' people giving a reason for this. On the upside, goths tend to be more artistic, if not sometimes creepy, but they almost always remember their grudges. Snape has the dark hair, dark clothes, pale complection, resentment of mainstream culture (and he still holds the grudge against the popular people from school), of a goth. Does that help? Andrew (as viewed, by a teenager) From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 12 04:55:40 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:55:40 -0000 Subject: Socks In-Reply-To: <000001c3d8b1$0f6b3100$4e60bf44@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Iggy McSnurd" wrote: > Iggy de-cloaking for a minute: > > I have an interesting question here... What's JKR's fixation with > socks? (snip) > Dumbledore claims to see them in the mirror. I don't know why socks appear so often in the story, but there are several theories about those particular socks. IMHO all the *interesting* theories assume that DD told the truth that he really did see himself holding socks when he looked in the Mirror of Erised, but didn't tell the most important truth about WHY he saw that. One is that DD yearns to free all the House Elves (either out of the same idealism as Hermione or because a House Elf army could defeat Voldemort so thoroughly) and he sees himself holding many socks and handing them out to House Elves. Another is that DD himself *is* a House Elf, which is why he has such powerful and unusual magical ability, and he sees himself being given socks and thus freedom. One version goes on to explain that he is Nicolas Flamel's House Elf and Flamel disguised him as a human and ordered him to defend the wizarding world against Voldemort... Me, I believe that he saw himself holding socks, but they weren't just any socks: they were a brand-new pair of the hideously ugly and not particularly comfortable hand-made socks that his late beloved wife (or mother, or boyfriend) always knitted for him for Christmas every year, and what he really wishes is that the beloved person was still alive and with him. From saitaina at wizzards.net Mon Jan 12 05:01:33 2004 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:01:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape a vampire? Different explanation References: Message-ID: <00f001c3d8c9$270e98c0$b9361c40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 88486 Could you guys, next time you want to know more about a 'culture' actually ask a member of said culture? The gothic (Goth) lifestyle is just a unique way to express yourself. It varies from person to person from the make up to the music. Basically the lifestyle is a love of gothic themes, weither they be music, clothes, make up, horror, what have you. Attitude varies from person to person as well which is why you can't describe someone as a "Goth" (such as Snape) just on his 'tude. I happen to be a Goth but don't wear the make up (and I dress in black because it's sliming). That's doesn't make me any closer to a vampire then Van Helsing just like dressing in black, having a bad attitude, liking cold, being bat like and pale makes Snape one. He could be a Goth, he could not be, but really I just don't see it. Saitaina PS: By the way, as a point that clothes, ect don't define who a Goth is, I might mention that I like wearing frilly dress up clothes in the colour pink too. :o) **** Brave and bold they're not. They ain't the bravest heroes...but they're the only ones we've got. http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." From rayheuer3 at aol.com Mon Jan 12 05:51:06 2004 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:51:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Socks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88487 catlady at wicca.net wrote: >Me, I believe that he saw himself holding socks, but they weren't just >any socks: they were a brand-new pair of the hideously ugly and not >particularly comfortable hand-made socks that his late beloved wife >(or mother, or boyfriend) always knitted for him for Christmas every >year, and what he really wishes is that the beloved person was still >alive and with him. I like this idea, it has a certain poetry. However, as someone who is getting on in years, I have to say that when one is old enough to sport a long, white beard, and lives in a place with stone floors and no central heating, a pair of warm, comfortable (and self-laundering) socks comes very close to being your heart's desire. -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jakejensen at hotmail.com Mon Jan 12 06:09:28 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:09:28 -0000 Subject: Discussing Vampire!Snape without drawing blood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88488 It is very difficult to discuss some topics on this board. Vampire! Snape is clearly a good example. I think good points have been raised by many individuals (on both sides), but all too quickly the discussion sparks name-calling and many responses are just off the mark (once again, on both sides). I am especially saddened when posts contain rude remarks meant to demean an entire group of people simply because they think differently. We should all try to read carefully, respond thoughtfully, and argue (when we must) gracefully. As an example: Some have pointed out that Snape ventures out into the daylight several times over the course of the books. Indeed, one popular weakness of vampires is that sunlight is fatal. Whether you agree with this or not, it is a good "canon-based" argument. Some have pointed out that Lupin (as a werewolf) was shielded from the harmful effects of full moonlight by a magical potion brewed by Snape. JKR presents this information in the same text (PoA) containing the strongest "Snape is a vampire" canon (e.g., the Snape- Lupin exchange). Put differently, JKR has provided a vehicle (magic potions) capable of protecting Snape from the damage of sunlight (just like Lupin). Whether you agree with this or not, it is a good "canon-based" argument. Some have pointed out, in addition, that JKR is a skilled historian utilizing mythology from across the board (i.e., some mythology is modern usage others are very dated). Traditionally (as in the initial legend of dracula...the most famous vampire story of them all) vampires could walk in the daylight, but they were just weaker (i.e., sunlight was not fatal). Modern movies and books, however, have often protrayad vampires as mortal to the sun. In other words, death by sunlight is not a "must have" trait for vampires and it is even lacking in the greatest tale of them all...dracula. Whether you agree with this or not, it is good "literary" argument. Jake From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 09:43:42 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:43:42 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood a transfigured McGonagall, or worse yet--a house elf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88489 There are also numerous references in OOTP to support that Luna is who she says she is. Her father is after all the editor of The Quibbler. She gets her father to print the article Rita S. wrote. Also, Mcgonnagal is lying in St Mungo's after being attacked by Umbridges' minions when the 6 students went to the Ministry of Magic to save Sirius, Luna included. vmonte responds: Your right there are too many holes in this theory. Still I wonder what was the experiment that Luna's mother did that caused her death? vmonte From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 12 10:28:33 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:28:33 -0000 Subject: sexism/discussion questions/PLUMBING!/shark Transfiguration/vanishFood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88490 Constance Vigilance wrote: Which makes one wonder why Krum would choose to become a *shark*!! He might have *eaten* Hermione instead of rescuing her. Why not a cute dolphin or something, not only not as lethal, but smarter, too! >> Catlady wrote: But I suppose that JKR had her reasons ... Krum is more able to Transfigure himself into a shark than a dolphin because he is really a bloodthirsty and stupid DarkSider despite his good taste in beloved girls ... or because he is part-shark and that's why he could have a morning swim in the frozen lake ... Durmstrang teaches self Transfiguration into sharks not dolphins because Durmstrang is evil ... Berit replies: Canon provides a plausable explanation to why Krum attempted to transfigure himself into a shark rather than a dolphin: A dolphin is a mammal; a shark is a fish. Mammals are considered more complex creatures than fish. We've learned in McGonagall's Transfiguration classes that the more complex the organism, the more difficult it is to transfigure something into it. I guess it's hard enough to transfigure yourself into a big shark, but even more hard to do a dolphin... So Krum opted for the "easy" choice. Which was so difficult he only managed it halfway. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 12 10:42:36 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:42:36 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charactors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" > > Which makes one wonder why Krum would choose to become a *shark*!! He > might have *eaten* Hermione instead of rescuing her. Why not a cute > dolphin or something, not only not as lethal, but smarter, too! > Not really, though blood in the water might have entertained those of the FEATHERBOA persuasion. Krum performed an *incomplete* transfiguration into a shark. I've always taken this as deliberate since it could allow him to have the swimming skills of a fish but to retain his human intelligence. Damn clever, these Bulgarians! Kneasy From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 12 06:32:39 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:32:39 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88492 ALI wrote: Sawsan: I hope he won't die. That would be like watching Titanic all over again. A great series with a horrible ending. I believe, though not strongly, that he won't die, but in one of JKR's interviews, she seemed ready to kill him off asap; and she always adds whenever anyone asks about Harry's future that he might not live. So unless he will half live somehow or be a ghost or undead, it seems like Harry has a strong chance of joining his parents, which has also been stressed in the Mirror of Erised. I honestly hope not. I speculate that maybe JKR might kill off our poor little Harry, but maybe a stronger, more happy Harry might appear? bear with me a moment; but if, as some speculate, Harry uses time to go back and somehow make Voldi a nonexistant character, (Maybe stabalizing Tom Riddle for instance, helping him find love or whatever he needed to actually be a good guy) then when Harry returns to the present, he will find that everything is different and all of his life is different as well. ? What do you think? From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Mon Jan 12 12:17:58 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (=?iso-8859-1?q?Vinnia?=) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:17:58 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040112121758.56859.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88493 --- abigailnus wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > Discussion Questions: > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for > Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he > truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select > him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, > he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? > What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for > selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in > the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have > made a better > choice? Vinnia: I don't think Ron is a good choice, because he doesn't care enough. Look at Percy in PS/SS, he talked to Hermione about lessons - showing that he's willing to answer first year students queries. In CoS, Percy offered Harry advice about elective subjects. I'd say that if Harry wasn't friend with Ron, but need advice, Percy would still help. Compare this with Ron, he called the first year 'midget' He probably did all the required task, but not more. But Ron needs to be a prefect for the story, for some reasons: 1. To maintain peace in fifth year boys dormitory. If Dean/Seamus was prefect, the scene on the first night back would have different outcome. 2. Ron needs to become prefect to get a new broom. The story line need Ron to have the broom to get into the team, to lead Harry to the scene with Malfoy, and the quidditch ban As for the other boys: - Seamus: Harry would have a hard time in the dorm room...at least on the first night. Probably Dumbledore was aware about Mrs Finnigan's view on the matter, therefore expect some sort of confrontation to break out between Seamus and Harry at some point? Interestingly enough, Seamus' first DA meeting is also the last DA meeting held that year. Does he has something to do with Marietta's betrayal? - Dean: he's Seamus best friend, so same reason as to why Seamus can't be a prefect. - Neville: he was not ready to be a prefect. He still had to grow his confidance at the time. > > 13. Sirius tells us that James wasn't a prefect, and > yet we know from > PS/SS that he was Head Boy. Several suggestions > have been made > in the attempt to resolve this paradox, among them > the claim that > this is a FLINT, the suggestion that a HB isn't > necessarily selected > from among the prefects, and the suggestion that > Lupin was > stripped of his prefect's badge, which was given to > James. Which, > if any, do you think is true? What do you think > this bodes for Harry's > chances of being made Head Boy? Vinnia: --start quote-- CoS ch 4: 'Wish I knew what he was up to,' said Fred, frowning. 'He's not himself. His exam results came the day before you did; twelve O.W.L.s and he hardly gloated at all.' George: 'Bill got twelve too. If we're not careful, we'll have another Head Boy in the family.' --end quote-- So it looks like head boy is chosen by academic achievement. Harry is not really one of the top students, is he? Draco is probably one, though. If Draco is the top male student, would Dumbledore not let him become head boy because his father is a DE? The other likely candidate is Ernie McMillan, IMHO. Vinnia http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 12 12:25:18 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:25:18 -0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Danielle" wrote: > > I've read other posts comparing Voldy to a vampire, and your post > sums up all of those points nicely. So, I have nothing from canon > to offer you proving he's not one. > > I only offer to use your own anti-Snape!Vampire argument against > you: > > In what way would Voldy being a vampire aid or enhance the plot of > the books at this point? And why, if Snape should be a human with > human motivations for his nastiness, etc. instead of a vampire, is > this not also true for Voldy? He is, or was, human. And Tom Riddle > proved that Voldy's evilness was brewing nicely while he was still > fully human. So, why a vampire now? > Exactly. Why a vampire now? Indeed, why a vampire at all - anywhere in the cast list? But for those that feel deprived if a fantasy adventure omits such beings then I'd recommend looking at all the runners in the field and comparing their form before fixing the odds. Voldy seems to show more of the commonly accepted characteristics of vampirism than Snape does. When the arguments for the Snape!Vampire hypothesis are examined, particularly when special pleading (potions not yet revealed, different folklores may apply, etc.) are produced, it becomes possible by extension to force any number of round pegs into square holes all through the canon; all that's needed is an adjustment to your criteria. Where's the logic in this instance? So why do many insist on Snape!Vampire when Voldy!Vampire is a better bet? Could it be that there are people out there that *gasp* do not appreciate our Sevvy? Are there those who really want to see him squirming in his coffin as Hagrid hammers a stake through his shirt- front as the sun sets over the turrets and castellations of Hogwarts? And complaining because DD won't let him keep Snape!Vampire as a pet ("He'd be really good for the Care of Magical Creatures lessons!")? Surely not. We need a miserable old bastard figure if only to keep that little toe-rag Potter in some sort of order. And who else manages to exercise any sort of discipline or restraint on him? No. I think Snape's story is going to be much more interesting than a mere necking session gone wrong in some dark wood somewhere. Kneasy From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 12 14:37:14 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:37:14 -0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Why a vampire now? Indeed, why a vampire at all - anywhere in the > cast list? "K" That's a good question. Why wait so long to show us a vampire? But then again, why wait so long to tell us about Lily. It's a matter of keeping what's important till the end. Kneazy: > But for those that feel deprived if a fantasy adventure omits such >beings then I'd recommend looking at all the runners in the field >and comparing their form before fixing the odds. "K" Even though I do love vampires and would like to see them in the story, I would just like to say I wouldn't use the word 'deprived' as the way I would feel if no vamps show up. Kneazy: > Voldy seems to show more of the commonly accepted characteristics > of vampirism than Snape does. (snip) > So why do many insist on Snape!Vampire when Voldy!Vampire is a > better bet? Who says there has to be only one? Kneazy: >Could it be that there are people out there that *gasp* do > not appreciate our Sevvy? "K" What?!? How could you say that. Oh, I do appreciate Snape. Probably more than most people. He is the best character in the book. Followed by Dumbledore, of course. :-) From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 15:19:33 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:19:33 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and Diggorys (was Re: the Lovegoods) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88496 In wondering about whether Ron knew Luna, even though they (may) live near each other, bboy_mn provided the following quote and comment: > - - - Quote: GoF Am Ed HB pg 72 - - - > > "Long walk, Arthur?" Cedric's father asked. > > "Not too bad," said Mr. Weasley. "We live just on the other side of > the village there. You?" > > --- pause quote --- > > > Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley don't seem to know exactly were the other > lives. Ginger: Which now has me wondering exactly how floo powder works. In the beginning of GoF, ch 11, Amos Diggory's head appears in the Weasley fireplace. He states the he is "calling" from the MoM. Does one have to know the physical location of the person one is "calling" via floo? Or does the MoM have some sort of Floo Speed Dial for its employees? Back to the original question: Does Ron know Luna? (much snippage of very good thought) bboy_mn again writes: > In a way though, distance doesn't mean much to wizards. Even underage > wizards via Floo can travel hundreds of mile before we could even get > out to the garage and get our car started. So close or far, Ron would > not know other wizards and their kids well unless the Weasleys > socialized with them in some fashion. This ease of traveling hundreds > of miles effortlessly, can just as easily be isolating as bringing > wizards closer together. Ginger again: Very good point. Substitute computers for magic and it is true in the real world. I have e-mailed people in England, Philly, and many other places, but have no idea what my next-door neighbours look like. (Except the one that is a compulsive raker-it's hard to miss her.) As computers transcend the miles for us, so floo does for the WW. It would seem that physical proximity would be a small factor in socializing. Wizarding children probably only know relatives and the children of their parents' friends. Parents may have made those friends at school or work, but pre-Hogwarts kids would have no means of meeting other Wizarding kids except through their parents. Look at Draco, Crabbe and Goyle. They knew each other on the train at the beginning. Their fathers are DE's. They may very well live miles apart. Or not. With floo teavel, it's a moot point (for now). Ginger, wishing she could just floo to Grandma's From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jan 12 15:31:54 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:31:54 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Melete: > > I've also been thinking a great deal about the > > small size of Harry. Really it seems to be brought up > > enough so that we get this idea that Harry is fairly > > small for his age...most likely from undernourishment. > > Geoff: > It is however recorded that > > "He was a skinny, black-haired, bespectacled boy who had the pinched, > slightly unhealthy look of someone /who has grown a lot/ in a short > space of time." > > (OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.7 UK edition) I also got that impression - that as time is passing, Harry is becoming much more normal-sized, although maybe still skinny. He even *looks* a lot more normal and even like a regular cute kid on the cover of OoP (at least on the US edition). Maybe all that feasting at Hogwarts is doing him some good. :) He also has healthier relationships with people around him while he's at school, which may contribute. Also, I remember in the Pensieve scene that Harry was sure he and James would be within an inch of each other's height, which means he's probably normal height now, since we are never told that James is/was short. I don't typically think of bullies as being short either, although I guess if you're a wizard it doesn't really matter how big you are (e.g. Ginny). With all the other problems in his life, I'm glad JKR is at least making Harry look a little more normal. I know it's silly and superficial, but I think it would be nice for Harry if at least ONE THING in his life was anything other than a source of pain/embarrassment. Allie From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 15:35:20 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:35:20 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88498 June begins a list of standard vampire traits, of which I will list only the first: Allow me to run through what I > consider to be fairly central tenets to the vampire myth vis a vis > Snape. > > 1. Blood drinking. No canon evidence for his doing this at any > time. No listless pallid students - except as normal listless and > pallid teenagers. The difference between teenagers and vampire > victims? Very hard to call this one, I should know as mother of a > teenager. Oh and spare me mention of the blood lollipops. > > "You've just mentioned them yourself June" "Oh have I? So I have!" Ginger, shaking her head at herself for butting in on the *opposite* side of the stand she normally takes: In OoP, Arthur takes a Blood-Replenishing Potion every half hour (OoP p. 488 US). Could this be a dropped hint? Snape "eats" in the great hall. (Rats! I shouldn't have snipped number 2 of June's reasons: vampires don't eat.) Like a 3 year old, he picks and moves things around and then proclaims himself "done" and then goes off to his dungeon for a nice replenishing potion. The other staff knew Lupin was a werewolf and don't comment on his abscences. Perhaps it is the same with Snape. They know, but don't comment. Too bad they don't have a dog in the hall, it would make it easier with one under the table to whom to feed the scraps. Ginger, who doesn't think Snape is a vampire, but is willing to play both sides of the net in debate. Intrusion over: June and K- carry on! I'm enjoying this. From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Mon Jan 12 16:08:46 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:08:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: <20040112121758.56859.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88499 wrote: So it looks like head boy is chosen by academic achievement. Harry is not really one of the top students, is he? Draco is probably one, though. Arya Now: I disagree about Draco being a top student. I just reread CoS this past weekend and came upon the scene in Borgin and Burkes where Draco is eyeing the Hand of Glory. Paraphrasing here, but after Mr. Morgin says, "Best friend of theives ans plunders." Then Lucius says, "I would hope my son grows up to be more than a theif or plunder." and also says, "Although, if his marks don't improve, I daresay that's all he'll be qualified to do." This struck me becuase so many people are convinced Draco must be clever smart. I don't think so. I think this shows us he's not any brainier than Harry and probably average at best. Plus, there's the fact he goes around spouting off hs allegiance to the dark side and telling Harry Potter he's going to see him dead--he's not too clever that Draco. Nope. In fact, I'm willing to bet Harry is more likely to be a top student than Draco Malfoy, simply because Hermione does help him with his homework. Also, his mum and dad were obviously clever as they come (Head Boy and Girl!) and brains are genentic to a great point. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 12 16:28:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:28:21 -0000 Subject: Vamp 'til ready In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88500 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > > "K" > That's a good question. Why wait so long to show us a vampire? But > then again, why wait so long to tell us about Lily. It's a matter of > keeping what's important till the end. > Tell us what about Lily? I can't think of anything about Lily that might be important except who she might be related to. And since there have been endless speculations on that subject, tying her to all sorts of unlikely types, from DD to Voldy via Arabella Figg, it's difficult to get excited about it now. Similarly, I can't see how Snape being a vampire is important, not unless his job is to turn young Potter into one of the un-dead so that Voldy can't zap him. Then Harry can retire to the Shrieking Shack and live happily ever after, reclining among his Sirius memorabilia and nipping down to Hogsmead for the occasional blood-flavoured lollypop. IMO the intriguing question for Snapeologists isn't "What is he?", it's "What is he up to and why?" No matter how much I torture my failing intellect, I can't conceive of a realistic scenario that would *require* him to be a vampire. JKR rarely if ever does things to major characters without a reason, but it's the credible reason that's missing. There may yet be revelations about Lily, despite my doubts, but there will be a reason for those revelations - it will be integral to the plot and it will tie up a loose end or two. How could Snape!Vampire resolve anything that has gone before? Sorry, I just can't see it. Kneasy From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jan 12 16:46:27 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:46:27 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > June begins a list of standard vampire traits, of which I will list > only the first: [snip] > Ginger, shaking her head at herself for butting in on the *opposite* > side of the stand she normally takes: June: That's all right - I promised myself NOT to get involved in this debate ever, because I think it's silly. Look at me now. Did someone at the back of the class whisper "Silly" - I know who you are... > In OoP, Arthur takes a Blood-Replenishing Potion every half hour (OoP > p. 488 US). Could this be a dropped hint? Snape "eats" in the great > hall. (Rats! I shouldn't have snipped number 2 of June's reasons: > vampires don't eat.) June: Shades of Monty Python here: The Spanish Inquisition - "Our chief weapon is fear, and surprise...our two chief weapons are fear, surprise and a ruthless devotion to the Pope..." - I know what you mean - I wrote a list on another list today headed "my three ideas" and then listed nine ;-) Hints, hints, NOT evidence. Give me some evidence. "Give me a reason and I swear I will". What? Listen to the arguments. Like a 3 year old, he picks and moves things > around and then proclaims himself "done" and then goes off to his > dungeon for a nice replenishing potion. The other staff knew Lupin > was a werewolf and don't comment on his abscences. Perhaps it is the > same with Snape. They know, but don't comment. That's better. An arguable rebuttal. Perhaps he holds the food in his mouth and then spits it out in a surreptitious way once he gets down to the dungeons, and lets hope he doesn't meet anyone on the way down who he has to speak to. Or of course his colleagues gossip and nudge each other - "See he's at it again..." > > Too bad they don't have a dog in the hall, it would make it easier > with one under the table to whom to feed the scraps. Okay, perhaps Fang is lurking under the table kindly supplied by Hagrid... or Mrs Norris will oblige... Alternatively maybe he just spits out his food because he has bulimia. I like the logic but still don't think it holds water. I don't think any of it holds water and I have indeed read all the earlier fantastic posts on the subject. Fantastic some of them are, but I still believe they exist in the realm of fantasy. Indeed I made it my business to read them all back when I joined this list and spent a week or two doing that before even posting a word. But I'm talking canon here and there is no canon evidence for Snape the Vampire - there may well be possible clues - if you want to find them and then use them towards this theory. Clues are not canon. You can also make this theory work if you keep distorting "generally accepted vampire rules" and I'm not prepared to get further involved in some nitpicking argument over what is and isn't vampire canon, lore etc. I've listed what I consider to be the general ones, and they seem fairly common to books, film and folklore too. I further believe that you can perhaps distort one and on the outside maybe two of the issues - but to debunk all that is known and "generally accepted about vampires" - sorry no. I also believe that JKR WILL go with the traditional rules on this. Why? Because she is writing for children and not folklorists. And a "vampire controlling potion" - well to have one potion controlling dangerous magic creatures is unfortunate, to have two is sheer carelessness, if I may paraphase Oscar Wilde. While not saying there will not be a vampire in the story, nor saying that there must not be one either, I still hold true to the central core of my argument: What is the point? And why do the Vampire!Snape adherents take such an insistent approach to it being necessary to the plot and the story? There can be a vampire or not - I don't insist that any of my theories and expectations be delivered by the author. Why should they? I once got a flame review on my fanfic writing because the reviewer didn't like the ending. I reviewed back to say "Hard Cheese" just as JKR will have every right to say to me, in the unlikely event of Vampire!Snape proving canon and the even more unlikely event of me complaining to her. > > Ginger, who doesn't think Snape is a vampire, but is willing to play > both sides of the net in debate. Spoken like a true lawyer!!! Are you one btw? June Still waiting for EVIDENCE... From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 12 18:46:24 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:46:24 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: d why do the Vampire!Snape adherents take such > an insistent approach to it being necessary to the plot and the > story? There can be a vampire or not - > > Still waiting for EVIDENCE... "Evidence" is any fact which might be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement. It seems to me that by "evidence" you mean "evidence which leads to an inescapable conclusion." That is not simply evidence. That is *proof*. The fact that other explanations can be devised for the vampire Snape clues does not exclude them as evidence. Occam's razor is not a terribly useful instrument in solving mystery stories, rather we must follow Sherlock Holmes and procede by eliminating the impossible and going with what remains, however unlikely. I think we can eliminate the possibility that vampires will play no major role in the story. If a major character turned out to be, say, a heliopath, that would be sloppy storytelling, IMO, but the grounds for a clandestine vampire are well-laid. How vampires will be necessary to the plot we don't yet know, because we know so little about JKR's vampires. After all, we didn't know why it would be important that Hagrid is kin to giants until the very end of Book Four. And it didn't turn out to be size that was important. It doesn't have to be their appetite for blood that makes vampires significant. As for what the Potterverse vampires *are*, we've been told that centaurs make little distinction among humans, so it's doubtful that vampires can be some sort of diseased human like werewolves. They must be a race, like Giants or Veela. And if so, then there may be "part" vampires. Just as an aside, "part" creatures are not a JKR invention. The folklore of the British Isles is full of them. So, if there is a vampire or part-vampire concealed among the characters, where is it? Possibly Voldemort has transformed himself into something like a vampire. But he cannot be a born vampire. His parents were a wizard and a Muggle. If either of Viktor Krum's parents were vampires surely someone at the Third Task would have remarked on it. But we know nothing about Snape's ancestry-- we don't even know if the people Harry glimpsed in Snape's memory were his parents. Now it won't make much difference to me if JKR comes up with some other explanation for Snape's vampire-like characteristics, but I do insist that such an explanation exist and be coherent. Red herrings have to lead *somewhere*. The characters have to be hiding *something.* It wouldn't be very satisfying to the reader if no explanation for Bagman's furtive behavior in GoF had been given, or if it had been only coincidence that Percy was in the dungeons and trying to shush Ginny in CoS. If there is no hidden vampire at Hogwarts, then I want to know why vampires are mentioned in all five of the books and both school books. Why has JKR gone out of her way to assure us that the Hogwarts Elves can accommodate special diets? Why, though she's emphasized that most wizards cannot easily alter their appearance,has she made a positive exception for "fangs"? Why has she taken such care not to show us Snape in the sunlight, except for one occasion when he was in obvious discomfort? Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan, so why should he be wearing a "very grim smile" when his team is going for the Final? I do think it's interesting that the anti-vampire contingent has said their feelings about this are so strong because thinking of Snape as a vampire would significantly change the way that they perceive him. Could JKR devise a stronger illustration of the insidious power of preconceived ideas? Pippin From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 19:58:00 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:58:00 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and Diggorys (was Re: the Lovegoods) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > In wondering about whether Ron knew Luna, even though they (may) live > near each other, bboy_mn provided the following quote and comment: > > > - - - Quote: GoF Am Ed HB pg 72 - - - > > > > "Long walk, Arthur?" Cedric's father asked. > > > > "Not too bad," said Mr. Weasley. "We live just on the other side of > > the village there. You?" > > > > --- pause quote --- > > > > > > Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley don't seem to know exactly were the > > other> lives. > > Ginger: > > ...edited... > > Back to the original question: Does Ron know Luna? > (much snippage of very good thought) > bboy_mn again writes: > > > In a way though, distance doesn't mean much to wizards. Even > > underage wizards via Floo can travel hundreds of mile before we > > could even get out to the garage and get our car started. So close > > or far, Ron would not know other wizards and their kids well > > unless the Weasleys socialized with them in some fashion. ... > > Ginger again: > > Very good point. Substitute computers for magic and it is true in > the real world. I have e-mailed people in England, Philly, and many > other places, but have no idea what my next-door neighbours look > like. (... > > As computers transcend the miles for us, so floo does for the WW. > It would seem that physical proximity would be a small factor in > socializing. ...edited... > > Ginger, wishing she could just floo to Grandma's bboy_mn: Thanks for the response Ginger. Your post reminded me of something that I think I might have been leading up to in my previous post but due to the late hour, by the time I got to the end, I completely spaced it out. When we travel by automobile (or train, plane, bus, etc...) it, first of all, takes time, and mroe important, we get to see where we are going; we get to see the country side pass by as we move through time and space. Wizards on the other hand, traveling by Floo or Portkey, see nothing by a vague blur as they move through time and space. Consequently, I could have traveled many many time to a given location by magical means and still not really know where the place is or how to get the by more muggle means. Applying this to the orignal question, the Weasleys, the Diggorys, the Lovegoods, and the Fawcetts could have actually socialized with each other at their respective homes, without any of them know exactly how to get to the other's homes in muggle space. In the Floo Network, the difference between 10 miles away and 100 miles away, is probably just a matter of a couple of seconds. So all sense of distance and place are lost in the mind of the traveler. Unless you could see some very distinctive landmark upon arrival at a given location, you would only have the vaguest idea where it was in physical space. Someone else asked something to the effect, do you need to know the physical location of a given place in order to Floo to it? I don't think you do, I think most of all you need to accurately name the place. Saying 'Hogwarts' or more detailed 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry' would get you there, but saying, 'that place up north that looks like an old castle where all those kids are' would not get you there. Floo network is very much like the subway, you really do need to know exactly where to get off, but you don't need to have been there before. Extending it farther, when you are hooked up to the Floo Network, you may get to pick one or more names by which you location will be listed in or known to the Floo Network. When the Weasleys were connected they chose to list their place as 'The Burrow', however, they many have a second listing as 'The Weasley's' or 'Arthur Weasley's'. I ammend this by saying that, in genneral, we have seen that intent plays a big part in magic. Simple charms and spells are frequently modified with slight shifts in intent, without the need for relavant details in the incantation. So based on intent, saying, 'Molly Weasley's', or 'Ron Weasley', rather than 'The Weasley's' or 'The Burrow' to the Floo Network would probably still work. The invocation of the Floo magic would be guided by you intent. But, of course, that's just one man's opinion. bboy_mn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 12 20:11:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:11:56 -0000 Subject: Predictions on the something small In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" wrote: > Actually, I don't believe that "Hogwarts: A History" contains the > legend of the Chamber at all. > > Why not? Because Hermione can't remember it. > > This is the girl who literally learns entire textbooks by heart. I'd > give examples, but I don't think it's necessary on this list. She > does admit to having memorized all her coursebooks in chapter six of > PS/SS. Throughout the series, she *constantly* refers to facts > from "Hogwarts: A History". And now, when it comes to this one very important piece of information, she can't remember? > Hermione's very unwilling to assert anything on which she thinks she might be challenged without the evidence handy. How many times has she refused to tell the boys what's on her mind until she's checked in the library or otherwise obtained proof? It's just a symptom of her insecurity, I think. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 20:32:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:32:39 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88505 Abigail asked: 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better choice? > Marina: > I actually think that Neville would've been a better choice. He > needed a confidence booster as much as Ron did, and had already > demonstrated, back in PS/SS, the courage to stand up to his peers > for the good of the house. But in story terms, Neville is still too > minor a character. Plus, his confidence booster came from the DA > instead. Actually, I think the whole prefect storyline was kind of > wasted in the book. Most of Ron's character development came from > his role as a Quidditch player, not from his role of prefect. Of > course, if he hadn't made prefect, he wouldn't have had a broom to > get on the Quidditch team with, so perhaps that was its only purpose. Carol responds: I think it's a necessary boost to Ron's self-esteem, making him more of an equal to his brothers and raising closer to his mother's view of Percy, Charlie, and Bill. It also eliminates an unnecessary extra burden from Harry and provides a much-needed taste of responsibility for Ron. Granted, Ron wasn't a great success as a prefect, but with the twins gone, he should blossom a little in the next book. As for Neville, I don't think his fellow Gryffindors would accord him the necessary respect. They still see him as forgetful and bumbling. He'll find other ways to develop, possibly confronting Snape and, I hope, becoming closer to Harry. (I doubt very much that Ron will ever become Head Boy, but he may make quidditch captain, so he'll have matched Percy and Bill in one honor and Charlie in another. Once he sees himself as the equal of his brothers, he can start "finding himself," as we used to say in the Seventies.) I don't think the prefect storyline is wasted; we see contrasting ways of handling the position--Percy, Tom Riddle, Draco, Hermione, Ron--and reactions to authority in that form (notably the twins). Hope this makes sense as I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to read it over. Carol From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 12 16:04:42 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:04:42 -0000 Subject: Religion in the WW Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88506 > > Carol wrote: > > Notice that they haven't gone > > > politically correct by bringing in Hanukkah and Kwanzaa or wishing > > > each other "happy holidays." I just think that Harry knows more people who celebrate Christmas. It is the major religion in the West, and sometimes Christmas is portrayed as A national, happy, peaceful time I guess. Think about how children portray it. A lot of them only associate Christmas with Santa. I am an Arab American Muslim and get wished a Merry Christmas throughout the season and have never thought anything of it. Christmas is a great time of the year, and I think it gives a time for happiness and peace. I also think that it is pretty difficult to determine who is celebrating what unless they either sport a religious symbol or come out and say that they celebrate a certain holiday. Anyhow, I don't think that political correctness is something a young person worries too much about. People just know what they see and learn. I do wish that JKR would include a nice Arab Muslim person in the series. Every where I turn we are so horribly portrayed :((. I know that there is a character named Ali Bashir in the HP series, but he had some sort of criminal activity with flying carpets if I am not mistaken :((. From n8fiq at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 14:50:20 2004 From: n8fiq at yahoo.com (Lynn Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:50:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasleys as heir of Slytherin In-Reply-To: <1073871734.7780.14983.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040112145020.42113.qmail@web60902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88507 Lynn wrote: The arguments about specific wizards or witches being the heir of Slytherin (or Gryffindor, or any other prominent wizard of 1000 years ago) confuse me... After 400 generations (assuming 25 years per generation), there would be only a small percentage of genetic inheritance from someone that far back, but most everyone would have some genes from Hogwarts' prominent founders. Thoughts? Lynn Lynn says back to himself: You sure are confused! There would only be 40 generations in 1,000 years at 25 years per generation. Where did you learn math, anyway? Whoops! Good thing I'm a wiz at charms and transmogrification! Lynn __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From brucebanner at runbox.com Mon Jan 12 16:10:46 2004 From: brucebanner at runbox.com (brucebanner at runbox.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:10:46 GMT Subject: Chapter Discussion Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88508 Hello, > 2. Arthur's statement that Lucius Malfoy was trying to sneak > into the courtroom is presumably a misdirection on JKR's part. > The corridor in which Harry and Arthur find him is the one > leading to the Department of Mysteries - was he perhaps > trying to sneak in? What business does Lucius have with Fudge? I think it is pretty clear that Lucius is just rubbing elbows with Fudge. This is just a reminder that the Ministry of Magic is corrupt indeed. > 3. Lucius greets Harry as 'Patronus Potter'. Later in the book > Bellatrix refers to Sirius as 'Animagus Black'. In the latter case, > a person is referred to by the magical ability that distinguishes > him - is this also true for Harry? We know that his ability to > conjure a corporeal Patronus is unusual in a boy so young, but > does this ability - and the moniker - mark Harry as a protective > figure (after all, in conjuring the Patronus, he was also > protecting his helpless cousin)? Is it significant that the only > two people we've met who've used this fashion of referring to > people are Death Eaters? I'm surprised that Harry's Patronus form is something Lupin uses to identify Harry later. Harry doesn't consider his Patrouns form to be top secret -- he reveals it during his owls and tells the DA members. Why would Lupin consider it reasonable proof of identity when he could have asked Harry so many more things that only Harry knows? Like the form of Lupin's boggart. Confused, BB From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 12 20:52:04 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:52:04 -0000 Subject: Come again? Snape's a Quidditch Fan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88509 Look at this, an entire post from the L.O.O.N.iest of the supporters of a theory I totally don't support, and I'm picking on a side note. I must be slipping. Pippin: > Why has she taken such care not to show us Snape in the > sunlight, except for one occasion when he was in obvious > discomfort? Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan, so why > should he be wearing a "very grim smile" when his team is > going for the Final? Okay, I want canon for "Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan." This is stated with such certainty--where'd it come from? I think he enjoys the House rivalries, but my take has been that Quidditch is just one of the vehicles through which Slytherin should make its way to the top--rather than any liking of the sport for itself. ~Amanda P.S. -- He is not a vampire. Neener, neener. From rtb333 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 17:52:44 2004 From: rtb333 at yahoo.com (rtb333) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:52:44 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88510 (Apearing from Nowhere with a popping noise...) There has been a lot of debate on whether Snape is a Vampire or not. My inclination is, does it really matter? Of course not. Snape is still a nasty individual regardless. (Though I think he is one of the most interesting and unpredictable) I don't want to discourage debate on this topic, but I would like someone to tell me why it would matter if Snape is a Vampire or not. rtb333 (Disappearing with a popping noise...) From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Mon Jan 12 21:02:17 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:02:17 -0500 Subject: (FILK) Flee Karkaroff Message-ID: <410-22004111221217414@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88511 Flee Karkaroff (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of "Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond) Sometimes an idea for a filk comes and you *have to* write it. Midi is here (there's three, count 'em three to choose from): http://members.fortunecity.com/rockstorm/NeilDiamond.html GoF chapter 23 Karkaroff: We took the Mark As a pledge to the Dark Lord But Snape, it can't be ignored now It has come back Does it mean that he's returned? I can't deny, I'm concerned now Mark, the Dark Mark Getting clear On my arm, on yours too Snape: Flee, Karkaroff If you want to go away You can run off As for me I'm going to stay At Hogwarts Karkaroff: You can't pretend That this is not happening Acting as if everything's right But when it burns Burning on our left forearms Will be cause for alarm and fright Lord, the Dark Lord Calling out Burning me, burning you Snape: Flee, Karkaroff Do what you think you must do You can run off I'll make an excuse for you Flee, Karkaroff Just leave me the hell alone I am a prof. I don't want my cover blown -Gail B...who, for some off-the-wall reason she cannot adequately explain, digs Karkaroff houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 12 21:23:06 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:23:06 +0000 Subject: Recurrences Message-ID: <83798B33-4545-11D8-ADCF-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88512 Brain in idle (a most desirable state), I began thinking about some of the creatures that Harry has had to deal with over the past 5 books when I began to discern a pattern. In most instances where he has had to deal with some unfriendly life-form that tries to rip his guts out, he has already has seen/met/had dealings with a very similar type of animal in a friendly or at least in a non-threatening situation. So we have: Python in zoo - Snake at Duelling Club,Basilisk Norbert - Hungarian Horntail Fang - Fluffy Firenze (in PS/SS) - A rampaging mob of homicidal centaurs Lee Jordan's spider - Aragog Ghosts - Dementors Some may argue about the last entry, but they could both fall into the same category of phenomena. In some mythologies Soul-Suckers are a form of Ghost. Just about the only instances that don't fit are Blast-Ended Skrewt, though this was probably bred specifically for the TWT and the Troll in PS/SS, though since Harry had already met Crabbe and Goyle by then........ So what, you cry. Well, there's an oddity back in PoA. Combine that with a couple of other mentions, plus a rumour (unsubstantiated) that floated across the site a couple of months back and my suspicion index starts creeping up. Pavarti Patil. Not an Arabic or Egyptian name. There is no 'p' or 'v' in the Arabic alphabet, though equivalents have been borrowed recently from Persian to cope with Western terms like Pepsi and Vitalis. The name sounds more likely to be Persian or Indian. So why does she fear a Boggart masquerading as a bandage wrapped mummy, which is strictly Egyptian (mummies from other cultures are wrapped in blankets or shrouds) and when her own mythology has some very nasty beasts of its own? Add Bill as a former Curse-Breaker in Egypt. Add Ron whittering on about the nasty sights in Pyramid tombs. Add the rumour that a forth-coming title for the film of a yet-unwritten book is "HP and the Pyramids of Something-or-other" and I begin to wonder. If my guess is correct, Harry could meet his mummy after all. Kneasy From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 12 21:51:00 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:51:00 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88513 (1) I read the Knight2King essay that "Cora" mentioned(Message 88373). It goes into incredible detail on the analogy of the chess game. (Those guys have waaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands.) I am not convinced of all the details and I have never been impressed by the "Ron is Dumbledore" theory. I still think in the configuration of the other clues that the chess game foreshadows Ron dying at the end of Book 7. I hope wrong, but we will just have to wait and see. (2) A couple of people mentioned an interview in which JKR said in response to the question of whether Ron was going to die: "As if I would kill off one of Harry's friends." That is not a definite "no," but it does certainly suggest that she isn't going to kill Ron off. I hope she is not playing with us or that she changes her mind. No one wants Ron to die. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 12 21:58:03 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:58:03 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88514 We know from OOTP (ch 9, p. 170 US ed.) that James, Sirius, and Remus were all in the same house and that Remus was made Prefect. And most of us have assumed that House was Gryffindor (since we think at least James must have been in there). But what is the evidence? There is no direct evidence in the books. JKR in an interview (over at Scholastic Press) did say that Hagrid and Lily were in Gryffindor ("naturally"). But when asked whether James was the Gryffindor Seeker, she simply said he was a Chaser, leaving the House part unaddressed. (And I think it's safe to say that if she is planning a little surprise for Harry in the later books, she is not going to voluntarily raise the issue in an interview and give it away.) Second, in the Pensieve scene in OOTP 28 Harry sees James and later (ch 31, p. 704) when the trio are out under the same tree as in the Penseive scene, he thinks that Ron reminds him of an earlier Gryffindor Quidditch player ? naming, James. So Harry thinks James is in Gryffindor. But has Harry simply assumed it the way we have? In the books (unlike in the movies), there are no private school uniforms ? just ordinary black robes over regular teenage clothing. So there is nothing to identify James by appearance as Gryffindor. (In COS 12 in the Polyjuice scene, Hermione gets two bigger black robes for Harry and Ron, but there is nothing said about the robes being specifically "Slytherin" robes. Also, Harry and Ron mistake a girl (Penelope Clearwater) for a Slytherin ? if anything on her robe or anything else identified which house she was in, they would have known without asking that she was Ravenclaw.) Two major incidents from their school days suggest that James and the boys were in Slytherin. First, the conduct of James and Sirius in the Pensieve scene (OOTP 28) certainly is not the paradigm of Gryffindor behavior, to put it mildly. Looking for something to do, Sirius points out Snape, and out of boredom James tortures and humiliates Snape in front of other students and Lily. When Lily asks what Snape had done to him, James says it is more like the mere fact that Snape exists rather than anything he had done (p. 647). I can't see Harry or Ron doing anything remotely like that. But it does sound like something a powerful Slytherin would do. (Malfoy would probably like to do it, but he, unlike James and Sirius, is not the best in his class.) Second, in POA 18, pp. 356-57, we learned that Sirius sent werewolf Remus off to kill Snape as an "amusing" "trick." How could Sirius send his friend off like that? It certainly does not show the bravery of a Gryffindor. Again, I have trouble seeing Harry or Ron or any Gryffindor sending a friend who was a werewolf off to kill someone. James intervenes "at great risk to his own life" to prevent a murder and to prevent his friend Remus from becoming a murderer. But that doesn't change the significance of Sirius' behavior. You don't have to be in Gryffindor not to want someone murdered or your friend to be a murderer. James's actions did show bravery, but they were in countering Sirius's cowardly acts ? and so this part of the episode doesn't point to one House or the other. (If James was in Slytherin, this episode might be what changed his character.) There are a couple of other points that may be relevant. First, note that in the Pensieve scene, James and Lily refer to each other by their last names. Within Gryffindor, this is only done by members of the Quidditch team. (Was Lily on the Quidditch team?) Otherwise this is a strange thing for members of the same House to do after they have been there for 5 years ? especially since James is trying to get Lily to go out with him. But if they were in different houses, then that appears to be normal ? like Harry, Ron, and Hermione referring to Draco as "Malfoy" and vice versa. Second, everyone wonders how Wormtail could possibly have gotten into Gryffindor. His ambition (attaching himself to the best students in school and then to LV) strongly Slytherin, and none of his choices or abilities suggest any of the other three Houses. But this problem is premised on the idea that James and the boys were in Gryffindor and wouldn't include in their group of Marauders someone in Slytherin or any other House. But if they were all in Slytherin, there is no problem. (And they could still despise Snape even if his is in the same House.) The chief argument against this theory is that Snape would have known James was in Slytherin and would have been gleefully taunting Harry with the news all along. And Draco too would probably know, but he hasn't said anything. And LV too. And why hasn't Dumbledore told Harry? I don't have any answers for this, but James and Sirius's acts discussed above still are a pretty powerful argument for Slytherin. So James and the boys may well have been in Gryffindor, but it definitely not certain. I like to think Harry's father was in Gryffindor. The HP Lexicon says there is a 99% chance that James was in Gryffindor (and so the same is true for Sirius and Remus), but that was true before OOTP. Still, it is really interesting that JKR has never actually said it. She may be planning yet another shock for poor Harry. From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 22:03:09 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:03:09 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040111134204.02576b50@mail.rhinobunny.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88515 > hermione978 wrote: > >1. HAGRID told MCGONAGALL about DUMBLEDORE being there to deliver > >HARRY. MCGONAGALL was all ready there ahead of all of them all day. > >Why? Was there suspected trouble coming or as a precaution? Was > >there something else? > > and Derek pointed out: > For that matter, why was McGonagall there at all? She didn't know > about James and Lily (she had to ask Dumbledore whether it was true). > If she didn't know that James and Lily were dead, that Harry had > survived, etc., why was she staking out the Dursleys? Christy's thoughts... I had always assumed that Dumbledore knew something was happening, and as a member of the OoP, McGonagall was sent to do a task (go to this house), similar to the end of GoF, where Dumbledore just gives instructions to people and they obey without questioning him. Dumbledore does seem surprised to see McGonagall, though, so perhaps the order came from somebody else? Or maybe McGonagall had heard the rumor and went to the one place she expected Dumbledore would go... Her being there does seem kind of random, though. Cheers, Christy From rmm7e at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 22:03:59 2004 From: rmm7e at yahoo.com (Regina) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:03:59 -0000 Subject: "die, ron, die" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > actions are designed by JKR, etc. She knows how the fans love the 3 > amigos, it would be in her best interest to keep them intact. However, it remains *her* story and she can do whatever she wants. In one of the documentaries I saw*, she discusses how irritated she was when a parent of a young reader tried to tell her what to write (the parent complained the book was too dark). --Regina *I have this on my PVR at home if anyone wants the name and channel of the show, just email me. From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 22:14:02 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:14:02 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88517 Robert Jones wrote: > Two major incidents from their school days suggest that James and > the boys were in Slytherin. First, the conduct of James and Sirius > in the Pensieve scene (OOTP 28) certainly is not the paradigm of > Gryffindor behavior, to put it mildly. Looking for something to do, > Sirius points out Snape, and out of boredom James tortures and > humiliates Snape in front of other students and Lily. When Lily > asks what Snape had done to him, James says it is more like the mere > fact that Snape exists rather than anything he had done (p. 647). I > can't see Harry or Ron doing anything remotely like that. But it > does sound like something a powerful Slytherin would do. (Malfoy > would probably like to do it, but he, unlike James and Sirius, is > not the best in his class.) Christy's thoughts... You're right that the attitude sounds like Slytherin, BUT I don't think James was in Slytherin. Key reason: Snape. We've already seen that James and Snape despise one another and that attitude suggests that they were in different houses, since we haven't seen this kind of behavior in any of the current houses or in any previous groups. Rivals in different houses are one thing, but McGonagall makes it clear from day one "While you're here your house will be like your family." That hardly sounds like the relationship between James and Severus. Second, I can NOT see Remus Lupin as a member of Slytherin house. He has none of the qualities for that. Remus is... well... almost anything but a Slytherin. Therefore if James was in Slytherin there's no way all four boys were in the same house. Some thoughts... Christy From nicholas at adelanta.co.uk Mon Jan 12 21:21:53 2004 From: nicholas at adelanta.co.uk (nicholas at adelanta.co.uk) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:21:53 +0100 Subject: Sirius's bequests Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88518 Enjoyed the discussion about Harry inheriting Grimauld and/or Sirius's personal estate (I'm a bit slow in reading the posts; busy time of year..) If wizarding law is anything like British law, Harry's status as ward gives him no legal right to inherit. The only way he can is if Sirius willed his property to Harry or, more likely, to James (Harry would then inherit as James's heir). Whether the Black cousins inherit the house and any other part of Sirius's estate would depend upon whether that estate is entailed within the family, in other words, it cannot be given away as part of a bequest. I assume you all noticed that Sirius's vault at Gringotts is the one next to the one where the Philosopher's Stone was kept? Cheers, Nicholas From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 22:16:34 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:16:34 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: <83798B33-4545-11D8-ADCF-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88519 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > ... thinking about some of the creatures that Harry has had to deal > with over the past 5 books when I began to discern a pattern. > > ... he has had to deal with some unfriendly life-form that tries to > rip his guts out, he has already has seen/met/had dealings with .... > > So we have: > > -Python in zoo > -Snake at Duelling Club, > -Basilisk > -Norbert (the dragon) > -Hungarian Horntail > -Fang > -Fluffy > -Firenze (in PS/SS) > -A rampaging mob of homicidal centaurs > -Lee Jordan's spider (??His pet trantula??) > -Aragog > -Ghosts > -Dementors > > ...edited... > Just about the only instances that don't fit are Blast-Ended Skrewt, > though this was probably bred specifically for the TWT and the Troll > in PS/SS, though since Harry had already met Crabbe and Goyle by > then........ > > So what, you cry. > > Well, there's an oddity back in PoA. Combine that with a couple of > other mentions, plus a rumour (unsubstantiated) that floated across > the site ... my suspicion index starts creeping up. > > Pavarti Patil. Not an Arabic or Egyptian name. The name sounds more > likely to be Persian or Indian. So why does she fear a Boggart > masquerading as a bandage wrapped mummy, which is strictly > Egyptian ... and when her own mythology has some very nasty beasts > of its own? > bboy_mn: Why does anybody fear anything? As far as I can remember, Seamus and the Banshee is the only example of someone fearing something significantly related to their own culture. That's one out of ten. Given that only one out of ten had a culturally oriented Boggart, why would it be unsual for Pavarti to fear something that she must certainly be aware of, that most people of all cultures are aware of, and something that most people would logically fear. We fear what we fear, it never makes logical sense. > Kneasy continues: > > Add Bill as a former Curse-Breaker in Egypt. > > Add Ron whittering on about the nasty sights in Pyramid tombs. > > Add the rumour that a forth-coming title for the film of a > yet-unwritten book is "HP and the Pyramids of Something-or-other" > and I begin to wonder. > > If my guess is correct, Harry could meet his mummy after all. > > Kneasy bboy_mn: I think you are stretching to get an Egypt connection, and I will point out that you missed one very important Egyptian creature; Harry has also encountered a SPHINX in the Tri-Wizards maze. Other beast and beings- * Sphinx - in the Tri-Wizards maze. A Sphinx that would 'pounce' if he got the riddle wrong. * werewolf - not that many people in the wizard world can say that they are on speaking terms with a werewolf, nor many who can say they have had face-to-face full moon encounters with a werewolf and escaped unscathed. * Hungarian Horntail - yes, you already mentioned Norbert, but he was a baby, not a full grown 50 foot dragon capable of shooting flames at a range of 40 feet. * Blast-Ended Skrewts - I think they certainly deserve a mention. * MANY Hundreds of Giant Spiders - of all the giant spiders, Aragog was probably the tamest and most reasonable. Excluding Aragog specifically, Harry sustained injuries in all his encounters with the Acromatula - giant spiders. * Merepeople - who, in Harry's opinion, seem armed and quite capable of doing him harm. * the giant Squid - forget for a moment how a salt-water creature survives in fresh water, by any standard, no one want to encounter a giant squid. I must say though, that this is the most playful, benevolent, gentle giant squid one could ever hope to meet. Don't beleive me, just ask Dennis Creavy. * Giants - encountering Grawp (sp?) a couple of times would be enough to scare the pants of anyone. Trouble with giants is that given their size, weight, and enormous strength, the simplest gesture can have mamoth consequences. Example, when Hermione and Harry meet Grawp for the first time, he reaches toward them, when Hagrid yells at him, Grawp becomes distracted and withdraws his hand, an innocent gesture, but in the process he smack Hagrid and bloodies his nose. The most subtle gesture of a giant can have deadly consequences if it makes contact with a human. So, in this sense, I don't think giant intend as much harm as they cause. * Assorted dark creatures like Grindylows, Red Caps, etc... * Boggarts - * Mountain Trolls - certainly seem dangerous, far more dangerous that the valley trolls that were used for security ;). * Assorted other creatures like Hags who seem to move about freely in the wizard world, but are none-the-less known to eat small children when given a chance. Like I said the Egypt connection seems like a stretch, but I'm not willing to flat out say it is wrong; the clues are there. Just a thought. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 22:56:30 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:56:30 -0000 Subject: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Abigail asked: > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? ... > > > Marina: > > I actually think that Neville would've been a better choice. > bboy_mn: Brief comment on Neville as Prefect, different people react to stress in different way, since Neville has not gained his confidents yet, I think he would have been overwhelmed by the pressure of being appointed Prefect. Quite the oppossite of being re-enforced by the honor, he would have been crushed by the pressure and failed miserably. Now, at the end of book 5, given his improvement, and with the encouragement of his friends, I think he could have done a much better job. But it's too late now, Prefect have aleary been assigned. > Carol responds: > I think it's a necessary boost to Ron's self-esteem, .... It also > eliminates an unnecessary extra burden from Harry.... bboy_mn: True, in the end, it was a boost to Ron's self-esteem, but I don't think that is why it was given to him. Excluding Harry and Hermione for the moment, Ron is the only Gryffindor boy in his class year who has distinguished himself, who has take initiative under difficult circumstance, who has face danger bravely, who has established a willingness to fight for others and sacrific himself on their behalf. Ron has been places and done things that have proven that he is capable of functioning under stress. This distinction certainly puts Ron far and away above the others in qualifying as a Prefect candidate. I would put a gang of first years in Ron's care before I would put them in the care of Seamus or Dean. True, as long as nothing goes wrong, Seamus and Dean would do an adequate job, but in a crisis, in a dangerous situation, I would trust them to Ron's care above all others. (again, excluding Harry and Hermione for the moment) > Carol continues: > >Granted, Ron wasn't a great success as a prefect, ... bboy_mn: Why wasn't Ron a great success as a Prefect? Please don't forget that there are SIX Prefects in the House and of those, Ron is the junior Prefect. Where were the other four (excluding Hermione) Prefects when all these prefect duties that Ron allegedly failed at needed to be done? They certainly didn't seem concerned, they certainly didn't see a need to intervene. Ron patrolled the halls like all the other Prefects. He monitored the study rooms when the students stayed in on rainy days. He basically preform all the duties that all the other Prefects perform and seemed to do them as well as any. Where is the evidence that he was less than adequate? Just because he wasn't as fussy as Hermione and Percy; I think not. Ron was an average typical Prefect; he did just as good a job as Seamus or Dean would have done. The difference is, in times of trouble, I would much prefer to have Ron there than Dean or Seamus. In times of no trouble, they are about all equal. I think it is very unfair and unrealistic for people to compare Ron's quality of work as Prefect to Hermione or Percy. Hermione and Percy seem to be the exception to the rule. The other Prefects, who see no need to get involved, should be used to set the standard for a typical Prefect, and against the typical standard, Ron did a typical and standard job of it. > Carol continues: > > (I doubt very much that Ron will ever become Head Boy, ... > > Hope this makes sense as I'm on my way out the door and don't have > time to read it over. > > Carol bboy_mn: Sadly, I can't disagree with you about Ron becoming Head Boy. I really really REALLY want him to, but I think when the time comes, Harry will be Head Boy. But, for what it's worth, I think Ron will be Quidditch Captain, and he already has an award for Special Services to the School, so he is making a name for himself. As a side note, I'm pretty sure Head Boy and Head Girl are a school-wide honor, not a house honor; that is, 6 prefects per house, but only one Head Boy and Head Girl for the entire school. So it's possible that NO Gryffindor boy will become Head Boy. I find it hard to believe that anyone other than Hermione could be Head Girl. You have to admit that no student has proven themselves to such a degree and in so many ways as Harry. I think that puts Harry at the head of the line for Head Boy. Just a few thoughts from a staunch Ron defender. bboy_mn From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 12 22:58:00 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:58:00 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88521 "Arya" said: >I disagree about Draco being a top student. I just reread CoS this >past weekend and came upon the scene in Borgin and Burkes where Draco >is eyeing the Hand of Glory. Paraphrasing here, but after Mr. Morgin >says, "Best friend of theives ans plunders." Then Lucius says, "I >would hope my son grows up to be more than a theif or plunder." and >also says, "Although, if his marks don't improve, I daresay that's >all he'll be qualified to do." Oh, I think he probably is smart. The impression I got from that scene is not that Draco is getting bad grades, but that Lucius is furious because Draco (along with the rest of the students) isn't getting better grades than Hermione, and thinks he should be outperforming a Mudblood on principle. Draco's excuse about teachers having favorites may be just that, an excuse, or he may actually believe it, on the theory that otherwise of *course* he'd get better grades than any Mudblood ... Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 12 23:07:45 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:07:45 -0000 Subject: Come again? Snape's a Quidditch Fan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > Okay, I want canon for "Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan." This is stated with such certainty--where'd it come from? I think he enjoys the House rivalries, but my take has been that Quidditch is just one of the vehicles through which Slytherin should make its way to the top--rather than any liking of the sport for itself.< Argh, can't find my QTTA, but doesn't it say that you have to have a thorough knowledge of the game to referee? Anyway, Snape's devotion to the Slytherin team is canon, mourning over their defeats and manipulating the rules to give them extra practice time. Whether he cares as part of the House rivalry or for the sake of the game, he still ought to be smirking sickeningly at the prospect of a Slytherin victory, not smiling grimly. Pippin absurdly pleased at being called L.O.O.N.iest From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 12 23:21:33 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:21:33 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88523 > Robert Jones wrote: > > Two major incidents from their school days suggest that James and > > the boys were in Slytherin. First, the conduct of James and Sirius > > in the Pensieve scene (OOTP 28) certainly is not the paradigm of > > Gryffindor behavior, to put it mildly. Looking for something to do, > > Sirius points out Snape, and out of boredom James tortures and > > humiliates Snape in front of other students and Lily. When Lily > > asks what Snape had done to him, James says it is more like the mere > > fact that Snape exists rather than anything he had done (p. 647). I > > can't see Harry or Ron doing anything remotely like that. But it > > does sound like something a powerful Slytherin would do. (Malfoy > > would probably like to do it, but he, unlike James and Sirius, is > > not the best in his class.) > > Christy's thoughts... > You're right that the attitude sounds like Slytherin, BUT I don't > think James was in Slytherin. sachmet96 Actually it fits the Gryffindor behaviour very well. I think I pointed out in a previous post (which didn't show up when I searched for it) that it's only a matter of point of view. What James and gang did to Severus is similar to what George/Fred did to Umbridge. The reasons were different, but the behaviour was the same. So James and gang could still have been in Gryffindor. I don't really care what house they were in, but would be disappointed if they were in Slytherin which firstly is my favourite house and secondly it would be too much of a stereotype to put them there. From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 00:33:28 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:33:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d96c$ddf25f10$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88524 Helen R. Granberry wrote: Theory: Knight2King Thesis Statement: The chess game the trio plays at the end of PS/SS is a metaphor for the Second War between the forces of good led by Albus Dumbledore, and the forces of evil led by Lord Voldemort. It predicts future events as well as sheds light on the past and present. Combines the Chess theory and the Ron is Dumbledore theory (REDHEAD ALWAYS). vmonte replies: I also think that Ron is Dumbledore--I posted this thought on 1/3/04, # 88007. Here is another theory I have-- Hermione is MacGonagall! If Ron is Dumbledore, could MacGonagall be Hermione? It would be funny if MaGonagall gave Hermione the hour glass in the 3rd book to later prepare her for real time travel. (Rowling even turns Hermione into a cat in the series--a clue that she is MaGonagall!--this idea could only work if Hermione learns how to become an animagi in book 6 or 7 (just like James Potter's crew did). MaGonagall stated in book 5 that she was going to give Harry private lessons to prepare him for his future career (MaGonagall and Umbridge argument).? Hermione is always teaching Harry--and she is still teaching him as MaGonagall. MaGonagall and Dumbledore are married---aka Hermione and Ron!!!? vmonte >From Helen (LizardLaugh): As much as I think it would be totally cool for McGonagall to be Hermione (and secretly married to Ron/Dumbledore), I'd have to see more evidence. I know this may sound hypocritical coming from me, but there isn't enough to suggest it. Yet. My main issues with Hermione=McG are: 1. McG doesn't look like Hermione. Now, with Ron/Dumbledore, they *do* have a very strong physical resemblance. McG has black hair, Hermione brown. We don't really have enough else. Could she be dying her her? Sure, but... 2. She seems too genuinely shocked over Sirius being Padfoot and innocent. She's totally baffled at who opened the Chamber. She just doesn't seem in the loop -- even less so than Snape. Most damning? The conversation with Dumbledore outside the Dursleys. If they are Ron and Hermione, this conversation would have been very, very different. This is my primary issue with Hermione=McG. Could she be pretending? I suppose... but why pretend when no one else was around? 3. She's very, very Scottish. Hermione? Not. 4. The Quidditch obsession... though this could be argued as simply a rivalry with Snape. 5. Assuming Ron=DD (and, I know, that is a lot for some people to assume), their relationship dynamic is VERY different than that of Ron and Hermione. Plus, genius that Hermione is, you'd think she'd play a much, much bigger role. Now... evidence for? 1. Personality. McG and Hermione are both very strict and proper. They are obviously both very accomplished, powerful witches. 2. The cat connection... McG is a cat animagus, Hermione is turned into a cat. Foreshadowing? 3. Time Turner... McG trusted Hermione with it, in fact, introducing the concept of Time Travel to the story. 4. McG's love for Harry... we can see that in Hermione too. In the end though, when you compare the evidence for Ron=DD to Herm=McG, there is not nearly as much evidence. It's not that I don't want it to be so... especially when I really do believe Ron=DD and I'd hate to have him so lonely, it's just that there isn't enough evidence and there is still the problem of her acting completely clueless when she was alone with Dumbledore. From nineve_laguna at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 00:54:44 2004 From: nineve_laguna at hotmail.com (nineve_laguna) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:54:44 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice Potion question In-Reply-To: <20040112014207.22980.qmail@web60110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88525 At the end of GoF, DD explains the plot, and tells that if Barty Jr doesnt take his hourly swigs he will transform back. The polyjuice potion is taken as a gobletfull for the first and most painfull transformation and then the transformee only needs top-ups every hour, just like a vaccin, where you take the major first jab and then top up every year with a less concentrated potion, just to keep the blood flowing with it constantly. As to put slimy and thick potions into a hip flask, anything will go down with a porcelain funnel, or, if you are a qualified and clever wizard you can just do a spell and transfer the potion from the cauldron to inside the flask with a swish of the wand and no mess. An extra large opening of the hipflask would ensure that a large swig would flow down even if it was almost solid, just like old army water cans. Nineve --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scott Santangelo wrote: > > > Not exactly a follow-up to the thoughts in the prior posts, but a polyjuice question, just the same. I thought the potion was thick and glutinous, and that HRH drank a glass-full each to effect their transformations in COS. Barty Jr. has a flask-full from which he takes frequent swigs. It would seem a difficult potion to transfer to a flask, much less "swig" from . . . I guess it's possible, but it seemed odd. > > owlery2003 From ktd7 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 02:38:14 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:38:14 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (was Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Hi Elfun-Deb, >> > > > The last questions here are very interesting. I think Ron's > > temperament much more models Percy's than any other member of his > > family, though outwardly he allies himself with the twins in order > > to avoid the merciless teasing that the twins have historically > > heaped on Percy (there's no evidence that he's actually like the > > twins or he would have been nicking food from the kitchen long > > before Hermione found the entrance in GoF). > > bboy_mn/Steve: > > How many people do you think we will find who agree with US that Percy > and Ron are very much a like? > > I think that Ron falls somewhere in between Percy and the Twins. He is much more interested in staying out of trouble than the twins, and yet he is willing to break rules when he thinks there is a good reason, i.e., the flying Ford Anglia, among many other examples. Percy would never have allowed Hermione to make the Polyjuice potion. Percy would never have sneaked around Hogwarts under Harry's invisibility cloak. Percy would never have copied Hermione's notes! Ron is more of a straight arrow than Gred and Forge, but he is definitely not the "by the rules" suck-up that Percy is. Ron speaks his mind. He didn't abuse his power as Prefect, even though he had opportunities to get back at his two older brothers had he wanted to. A "Percy" would have stuck it to them. Ron has a big role that demands him to be flexible and open minded. He also comes up with the more bizarre (although possibly prophetic!) theories about events when compared to Hermione's more logical and thoughtful ideas. Karen From siskiou at msn.com Tue Jan 13 03:20:59 2004 From: siskiou at msn.com (Susanne) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:20:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron is like Percy (was Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <241404037.20040112192059@msn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88527 Hi, Monday, January 12, 2004, 6:38:14 PM, Karen wrote: > I think that Ron falls somewhere in between Percy and the Twins. I think so, too. Ron might be like Percy in some ways, but they don't seem very similar in general to me. Both are looking for approval, but in very different ways. Fred and George probably get most of their approval needs met by each other (and their classmates), and don't look for it as much from their parents. Percy has had a lot of success with his way of approval seeking from Molly and the Hogwarts system (prefect, Head boy), while Ron was basically overlooked a lot by his parents, as far as I see it. The prefect badge was something that caught Molly's attention, but otherwise Ron mostly seemed to get noticed by her when something went wrong. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at msn.com Visit our two pet bunnies: http://home.earthlink.net/~siskiou/ From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 03:39:14 2004 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:39:14 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Lily; Shark!Krum; Travelling by Floo Powder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88528 Kneasy wrote: <> Phyllis responds: There is something about Lily that JKR herself has said will be important (Boston Globe interview, October 18, 1999): Q: Do you know what Harry's parents look like? JKR: "Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/1999/1099- bostonglobe-loer.html I've been trying ever since to figure out what the importance of those Lily eyes is. I thought we might have been given a clue in OoP when we find out that they are almond-shaped ? the eyes of the Sphinx in GoF are almond-shaped, so I wondered if there might be a connection. But, for the life of me, I can't figure it out! Constance Vigilance wrote: <> It was actually JKR who chose the shark transformation for Krum. Perhaps there's some hidden SHIP-ping suggestion here ? that Krum is viewed by Ron (and possibly Harry as well) as a shark in pursuit of his bait ? Hermione. bboy_mn wrote: <> Don't forget, though, that when Harry coughed while saying "Diagon Alley" in CoS, he wound up in Knockturn Alley. His intent wasn't to go to Knockturn Alley ? he'd never even heard of it before. Based on this, I do think that what you say when you step into the emerald flames is quite important. ~Phyllis From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 04:07:48 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:07:48 -0000 Subject: FILK: This Secretary Is Not A Joy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88529 WARNING: While this filk contains absolutely nothing related to goats, it does have a a bit of stage business inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Today's vocabulary word ? munity ? not to be confused with a rebellious mutiny - is defined as "freedom" or "liberty". Umbridge is described below as an "Opponent of educational munity" which is my filking of the original line, "Component of operational unity" This Secretary Is Not A Joy (OOP, Chap. 13 and etc., etc. etc.) To the tune of A Secretary Is Not a Toy from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying (i.e., the 1996 revival with Matthew Broderick) Dedicated to Iggy McSnurd THE SCENE: The DADA Office. UMBRIDGE and the INIQUISITORIAL SQUAD prepare for another evening of detention with Harry Potter. The SQUAD is already present as UMBRIDGE enters. DRACO (spoken): Slytherins! Slytherins! May I present Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister of Magic UMBRIDGE (music): This Secretary is not a joy, No, my boy; Not too coy to butcher and batter And permanent shatter Those who won't comply with my ploys. THE SQUAD: No, this Secretary is not, Definitely not a joy. THE SQUAD (spoken, variously, smirking) You're absolutely right, Ms. U! We wouldn't have any other way, Ms. U! It's a Ministry rule, Ms. U! UMBRIDGE (music, flirting with DRACO in a stylized manner): This Secretary will prove a joy For Malfoy, He's my boy. So all of your wiles employ, Boy! UMBRIDGE & THE SQUAD: This Secretary is not... As far as Harry J. Pott, This Secretary is not ...a joy! THE SQUAD: She's a highly glacialized key Opponent of educational munity... To foul and primitive organisms She never will grant immunity She started our Inquisitor Squad PARKINSON: That is straight from the pages of Marquis de Sade! MONTAGUE: This Secretary is quite a threat, Much to Potter's regret BULSTRODE: Her quill That he writes with Is what she indicts with For all those who dare to annoy, Boy! (THE SQUAD leap unto the desktops to continue their dance) THE SQUAD: This Secretary's going to be Issuing stern decrees. PARKINSON: Oh, she supports Draco Malfoy, boy! DRACO I am her greatest ally I trust all of you know why UMBRIDGE This foe of Harry's my pride... and joy! (The members of the Squad simultaneously don glasses with black frames and slap a stick-on scar tattoo shaped like a lightening bolt on their foreheads. They take their seats in a mock-Harry Potter- detention, as UMBRIDGE tosses black quills to the Quartet) UMBRIDGE (spoken): "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" THE SQUAD (pretending to write) "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" UMBRIDGE: "Will Not" "Will Not" THE SQUAD (pretending to write) "Will Not" "Will Not" UMBRIDGE: "I will not tell lies" THE SQUAD (pretending to write) "I will not tell lies" "I will not tell lies" (The SQUAD leap from their desks displaying their left hands with the word "LIES" seemingly carved in blood.) Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! (The SQUAD dissolves in laughter ? the red letters are also of course tattoos.) MONTAGUE (inscribing the parchment with his black quill): "The slick green snake sneaks over the lousy lion" (His entire arm gushes a geyser of make-believe blood, which causes the SQUAD to again dissolve in laughter). THE SQUAD (in mock anguish) Nurse! Nurse! Nurse! Nurse! (UMBRIDGE uses an Evanesco spell to clear the stage for the big chorus-line finale. The SQUAD and UMBRIDGE are now all on desktop) UMBRIDGE & THE SQUAD (music): We've no need for Bellatrix! Harry will get his licks >From MOM's dominatrix! (Oh, we're so sick!) Our id's right out of Freud! Our wrath he can't avoid! This Secretary predicts He'll be destroyed! (As the final chord resounds, the SQUAD withdraws into the shadows. UMBRIDGE quickly takes her proper seat, assuming her usual unctuous manner. Enter Harry, with a stoic look.) UMBRIDGE (spoken, directing him to his desk) Good evening, Mr. Potter Well, sit down (Black-out) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 23:03:59 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:03:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Purpose Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88530 Never posted here before, sorry if this is question that has been asked before, but here it is: Every one is Harry Potter Universe has a purpose/connection to Harry (The writing of it anyway), Hermione's there to validate or give information, Malfoy is, on some level, the nemesis, etc. So far, Dumbledore's purpose was to protect Harry as an infant, and later in OP, to divulge Harry's destiny to him, ie, "vanquish" the Dark Lord, so what's left for him to do, as far as Harry's concerned? From jmmears at comcast.net Tue Jan 13 04:23:19 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:23:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, and a NEW Flint!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a > patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most > often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that > he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome > attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's > statement shed a new light on him? I'm not sure the statement sheds a new light on Arthur so much as it just reaffirms (for me, anyway) the impression that his attitudes toward protecting muggles are deeper and more heart-felt than he's often given credit for. Remember how angry he was at the twins for getting Dudley to eat the ton-tongue toffee? We rarely see Arthur be anything but somewhat amused at the twins antics, but at this point he's really upset because he interprets their actions as muggle-baiting. I suppose it's possible to interpret his benevolent protectiveness as being a bit condescending. but considering his very limited contact with the Muggle world, he seems to have a great deal of respect for all they can do without magic. > 2. Arthur's statement that Lucius Malfoy was trying to sneak > into the courtroom is presumably a misdirection on JKR's part. > The corridor in which Harry and Arthur find him is the one > leading to the Department of Mysteries - was he perhaps > trying to sneak in? What business does Lucius have with Fudge? I think that the text implies that Fudge is in Malfoy's pocket. It may not be that he accepts direct bribes from Lucius (although we can't rule that out), but politicians have been known reward wealthy benefactors without actually receiving cash payments. I believe that Lucius gets all the information he wants from Fudge without ever having to resort to an Unforgivable Curse. > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? No, I believe that any bitterness Arthur feels toward Lucius Malfoy's money is connected to his feeling that Malfoy's wealth has kept him insulated from being held accountable for his crimes, past and present. Money is always a delicate issue for people who don't have enough of it. However, I think that barring the injustices in the WW which allow someone like Malfoy to walk free, Arthur is at peace with his choices. > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's > a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at > this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the > position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe > that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will > Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this > acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as > a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who > is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? Hermione isn't entirely without intuition before OOP, but as far as her interpretations of Sirius' behavior go I think that she very much agrees with Molly Weasley. In fact, there seem to be more similarities between Hermione and Molly in OOP than I would ever have expected before I read it. Of course, she is more mature at 15 (or 16) than Ron and Harry are, but I'm confident that Harry will develop his own emotional instincts in the remaining books. Hermione isn't *always* right (although OOP tempts the reader to believe she is), and I expect there will be a day of reckoning in book 6 or 7 when everyone will realize it. Personally, I truly can't wait for that to happen since "little Miss Perfect" rather got on my nerves in OOP ! > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that > she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? She surely knows the story of Peter Pettigrew by OOP. I think that with everything else that's going on, it's not a big deal for her to note that Ron was very fond of his pet, and to ask if he'd like another. That Scabbers=Pettigrew isn't really relevant to her point. > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. > Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? Not really. It's canon that Fred and George have caused more trouble than all the other children combined. It's no secret that they've rejected her best efforts at guiding them toward the sort of future their older brothers have chosen, so I think that it's a bit much to expect her to tiptoe around their tender ::snort::, 17 year- old, of-age-in-the-WW feelings. I suppose she could have been more specific and said 'that's everyone (of those who actually care about such things) in the family!' but that's just a bit awkward IMO when everyone already knows what she means. As for 'bribing" Ron for getting the Prefect Badge, how is it possible to "bribe" someone after the fact? The broomstick was a "reward", not a bribe, and it's what good parents often do when their children display behavior they want to encourage. How do the > revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter > affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting > to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. > Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with > Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? I think that Molly is probably the member of the Order who has the most to lose, and carries the most stress of anyone at Grimmauld Place. I don't know that her reaction to Ron's news is any more of an overreaction than her reaction to Percy becoming a prefect in CoS. I really doubt that she's trying to recreate Percy in Ron at this late date. In fact, she's probably trying to figure out where she went wrong with Percy and second-guessing his upbringing. > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? I think that Rowling is beginning to bring Ron out of the second- best spot in which he, the other characters (and the reader) have been led to believe he will always reside. His leadership qualities were showcased in book one, but have been eclipsed by Harry's achievements and his own self-doubt ever since. In spite of what Dumbledore told Harry, I think he chose Ron for good reasons of his own. And no, no other Gryffindor boy would have come close to being as good a choice, particularly considering what's coming in their final years at Hogwarts. > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does > Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? I think that the twins' have a deep-seated, long standing disrespect for Percy and his values and it's almost a reflex with them to react against *anything* which reminds them of him. Both the Prefect Badge and Molly's happy reaction are ideal triggers for this. Poor Ron has devoted so much energy to trying not to be like Percy that he has (up till now) failed to allow himself to develop his own talents and follow his own path. I think that the only thing about Fred and George that Ron really wants is their utter self confidence. Otherwise, no, I don't think he really has any desire to be like Fred and George. > 12. Harry's argument with himself after Ron gets the prefect's badge, > and his decision to be happy for Ron, are a rare example of emotional > maturity. One could argue that it is in fact the last instance of that > kind of maturity until the very end of OOP, when he comes out of his > grief long enough to feel sorry for Luna. What is it about this > situation that brings out the adult in Harry? Does it have something > to do with the GoF Rift, and his perception of Ron as constantly being > in his shadow? Why does Harry find himself incapable of exercising > this same kind of introspection and maturity at other points during > OOP? It's because Harry knows deep down, how much Ron cares for him, and that Ron is still the person he values most. I think that Ron has resolved his problems which helped cause the Rift in GoF, and that the Ron/Harry friendship is stronger as a result. Harry, however still needs to work toward overcoming his shortcomings. People don't mature in a completely linear fashion, and I think that JKR has shown us these glimmers of "adult Harry" as a way of introducing the transition he's slowly making to adulthood. > 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained > her composure enough to feel embarrassed? Why is she so > ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told > about it? Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's > woes? Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the > coming war? I don't believe that Mrs. Weasley feels truly reassured. There have been many posts in the past concerning the WW's "warrior" culture, and I think that Molly is very embarrassed at letting her facade crack. In addition to that, the boggart has now revealed all her deepest fears to everyone in the house which is probably the last thing she wants. She knows that it will do the Order and her loved ones no good to know her worries, and she particularly doesn't want to add to the burdens Arthur carries. Harry seems to understand her feelings completely. It'll be interesting to see how she will cope with the coming events and I hope she'll be able to survive. Rowling has written her as a very strong character and I think that strength will be tested to it's limits. Great questions, Abigail! Thanks for pulling this together. As for the FLINT, it's actually more of an editing error, but it appears in both the British and the American editions in this chapter. ..A few moments passed; Harry [heard the door close] but remained bent double, listening; the only sounds he could hear were the blank picture on the wall sniggering again and the wastepaper basket in the corner coughing up the owl droppings. He straightened up and looked behind him. Hermione and Hedwing had gone. Harry hurried across the room, [closed the door], then returned slowly to his bed and sank onto it, gazing unseeingly at the foot of the wardrobe. OOP, Chapter 9, page 166 (US edition), page 151 (Bloomsbury edition) Harry is closing a door which Hermione already closed in the paragraph before. I was sure someone else must have spotted this but I've searched all the posts since June 21 as well as the Lexicon and the OOP FAQ and have found no mention of it anywhere. Do you think that if I write JKR pointing this out, she'll hire me to proofread Book 6? Jo Serenadust, thinking it's worth a shot From purplepenne at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 23:53:57 2004 From: purplepenne at yahoo.com (gogoyub4ri) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:53:57 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88532 I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school (once on the train in the first book and again in Diagon Alley in the second book) and she never gets in trouble from the ministry of magic for it. Anyone have a clue as to why not? I thought all magic is banned from use outside of school grounds (if you're a student of course). I'm guessing because it's not a charm that hurts anyone and is quite minor... but that's just my guess. Thanks! Lisa From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 01:50:19 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:19 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88533 I have been seeling lots of talk about Mark Evans. People saying that he could be another wizard like Harry, or even perhaps one of Harry's relatives. While re-reading through Order of the Phoenix I came across something that seemed to ruin these ideas. Hardback page 143 "The Hearing". "Dumbledore stood up and gave MRs. Figg his chair, conjuring a second one for himself. 'Full name?' said Fudge loudly, when Mrs. Figg had perched herself nervously on the very edge of her seat. 'Arabella Doreen Figg,' said MRs. Figg in her quavery voice. 'And who exactly are you?' said Fudge, in a bored and lofty voice. 'I', a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter lives,' said Mrs. Figg. 'We have no record of any witch or wixard living in LIttle Whinging other than Harry Potter,' said MAdam Bones at once. 'That situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events.'" This seems to ruin any theories about Mark Evans. Andrew From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 04:11:44 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:11:44 -0000 Subject: vampire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88534 Voldemort was making every effort to become immortal. Vampires are virtually immortal. Maybe it was Voldemort before the murders in Godric's Hollow who had become a vampire, along with whatever other methods he tried, to avoid death. We know he was drinking unicorn blood at least until the end of GoF. Could this relate to any other characters possibly being vampires? From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 04:32:25 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:32:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Purpose In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3d98e$3f2e7ae0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88535 Never posted here before, sorry if this is question that has been asked before, but here it is: Every one is Harry Potter Universe has a purpose/connection to Harry (The writing of it anyway), Hermione's there to validate or give information, Malfoy is, on some level, the nemesis, etc. So far, Dumbledore's purpose was to protect Harry as an infant, and later in OP, to divulge Harry's destiny to him, ie, "vanquish" the Dark Lord, so what's left for him to do, as far as Harry's concerned? >From Helen (LizardLaugh): I actually think that Dumbledore's role is the clearest of pretty much anyone's, at least, from a literary perspective. He's the mentor (and the puppet master, if you buy certain theories). He's there to explain the big mysteries... and I think there are quite a few more to come in need of explaining (like that sword Harry was eyeing in Dumbledore's office... and how Dumbledore manages to know as much as he does). He's the wise man. The benevolent grandfather. The Merlin to Harry's young Arthur. The Gandalf to Harry's Frodo, carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 04:39:59 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:39:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3d98f$4d5431e0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88536 I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school (once on the train in the first book and again in Diagon Alley in the second book) and she never gets in trouble from the ministry of magic for it. Anyone have a clue as to why not? I thought all magic is banned from use outside of school grounds (if you're a student of course). I'm guessing because it's not a charm that hurts anyone and is quite minor... but that's just my guess. Thanks! Lisa Helen (LizardLaugh): She only does this in the movies, never in the books. Arthur Weasley does this charm on Harry's glasses in CoS, but Hermione never does it in the books. From madamepudifoot at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 23:06:04 2004 From: madamepudifoot at yahoo.com (madamepudifoot) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:06:04 -0000 Subject: The 3rd/7th son Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88537 I have heard people mention that Ron is perhaps the "Seventh Son" - thereby serving as a protector of good, while being tormented/tempted by evil. However, I saw a side note during research that in India the attrubutes of the 7th son are instead applied to the 3rd son - in this case Percy. Could this be a connection about Percy that JKR's put in? It seems that Ron is always conspicuously absent during the key conflicts of the book (see below), and I find that extremely curious. What does that say about his future roles, and how does that tie in with his siblings? - PS/SS: knocked out during the wizards chess, misses Harry fighting Quirrel - his brave moment of sacrifice - CoS: wall falls between he and Harry, he is left behind with Lockhart, misses Harry fighting Tom Riddle - his brave moment is his wand backfiring on Lockhart - PoA: gets knocked out when Pettigrew escapes, Hermione and Harry go on to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak - his brave moment is chaining himself to Pettigrew and trying to get him when he transforms - GoF: gone in spirit while harry fights the dragon in the first task, is the person harry has to save in the second, watching the match while harry finishes the 3rd task and goes to confront Voldemort again - OoP: addled by the brains in the MoM and misses the battle between the DE's and the Order, as well as actually seeing Voldy appear in the MoM Not sure what these mean, but they strike me as significant when he is so close to Harry. From aiiesdelamour at aol.com Mon Jan 12 22:59:51 2004 From: aiiesdelamour at aol.com (aiiesdelamour at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:59:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: <83.2fc270b.2d3480e7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88538 In a message dated 1/12/2004 5:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, christyj2323 at yahoo.com writes: Second, I can NOT see Remus Lupin as a member of Slytherin house. He has none of the qualities for that. Remus is... well... almost anything but a Slytherin. Hi. :) My name is Crystal and I'm a new poster here -- have been lurking for a few days now, but finally figured I'd like to jump in on the discussion. (And the guidelines suggested an introduction should be given along with a first post, of course.) As for my thoughts on the discussion at hand, I think some very good points were brought about as to James and the gang being in Slytherin -- Peter's treachery, Sirius's behavior, and the fact that James very sorely reminded me of Draco in the Snape's Worst Memory chapter. However, a part of me still refuses to entirely give in to the theory, and I agree that Lupin is one of my primary reasons for it -- I could see Remus easily being a Ravenclaw, but that aside, I think he would belong in Gryffindor. I just don't see him as having the qualities that would make the Sorting Hat choose to place him in Slytherin, especially considering the fact that he knew, after Snape let it get out to the entire school that he was a werewolf, that the backlash from the parents would be so great that it was a better idea for him to simply go ahead and leave before Dumbledore was forced to dismiss him. I personally get the impression of pureblooded wizards especially being incredibly prejudiced to werewolves, or anyone slightly different. If they can have hatred of Muggleborn witches and wizards just because of their origins, with those individuals remaining human, how would they react to someone who isn't entirely human? Also, I think despite Sirius's behavior, his background would clue us in to him being in Gryffindor. Now -- I know a lot of people might use that as further argument for him to be in Slytherin, since obviously he comes from a family where, like the Malfoys, they probably go in expecting the Sorting Hat to place them in Slytherin. However, I think Sirius was enough of a rebel against his family's way of thinking that he was probably the black sheep (or should that be white sheep?) and different enough to be placed in Gryffindor. That's just my opinion on the matter. :) ? Crystal "Mr. Weasley and Mr. Malfoy don't get along." "Why?" "...Cane envy." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From topfor at aol.com Mon Jan 12 23:19:53 2004 From: topfor at aol.com (smtopliff) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:19:53 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: <83798B33-4545-11D8-ADCF-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Brain in idle (a most desirable state), I began thinking about some of > the creatures that Harry has had to deal with over the past 5 books > when I began to discern a pattern. > If my guess is correct, Harry could meet his mummy after all. I totally agree! Look at all the references in FBAWTFT that refer to beasts from Africa and the Far East...particularly the Runispoor, a three-headed snake that is a favourite pet for Dark Wizards. Yes, you can argue that there are beasts referenced from all over the world, why focus on Africa--I just know in my deepest bones that Harry is going to be travelling. (I am hoping as the youngest Quiddich Seeker for England, maybe he'll be playing against Victor Krum of Bulgaria?--okay, that's probably FanFic. sorry). But I'm tellin' ya, he's going to Egypt in book six or early book seven. Which had better be soon, really soon...please... .s. From kzspot at msn.com Tue Jan 13 03:12:10 2004 From: kzspot at msn.com (kzspot) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:12:10 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is McGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: <000001c3d96c$ddf25f10$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: > It would be funny if McGonagall gave Hermione the hour glass in the > 3rd book to later prepare her for real time travel. "snip" > From Helen (LizardLaugh): "snip" > 3. Time Turner... McG trusted Hermione with it, in fact, introducing the > concept of Time Travel to the story. I thought Isaac Asimov covered time travel somewhere by saying you couldn`t meet your future selves without putting a severe strain on the time fabric? Kzspot From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 04:16:41 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:16:41 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: We know that his ability to > > conjure a corporeal Patronus is unusual in a boy so young, but > > does this ability - and the moniker - mark Harry as a protective > > figure (after all, in conjuring the Patronus, he was also > > protecting his helpless cousin)? I suspect that regardless whose heir Harry is, he is Dumbledore's successor as protector and defender of the magical world. "whizbang" From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 04:27:38 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:27:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Purpose In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Dumbledore's purpose was to protect Harry as an infant, and later in > OP, to divulge Harry's destiny to him, ie, "vanquish" the Dark Lord, > so what's left for him to do, as far as Harry's concerned? I suspect that Dumbledore is training his replacement. whizbang From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 04:26:01 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:26:01 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: <000001c3d96c$ddf25f10$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > vmonte replies: > I also think that Ron is Dumbledore--I posted this thought on 1/3/04, > # 88007. > > Here is another theory I have-- > > Hermione is McGonagall! Hi vmonte. That does make sense. Either way, I'm relatively sure that McGonagall is coaching Hermione. I think it's one reason Hermione is so nervous in OotP. My guess is that Hermione was told to encourage Harry to give DADA lessons. The whole Dumbledore's Army idea was probably entrusted to her to make happen. Whether Dumbledore is Ron or not, he does have access to time turners and knows what needs to happen. whizbang From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 04:31:25 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:31:25 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" wrote: > > Robert Jones wrote: > > > Two major incidents from their school days suggest that James and > > > the boys were in Slytherin. JKR said that James was a chaser for Gryffindor. When asked if he was ever a prefect, Sirius said that he and James were too often in detention and Remus was made prefect. If they had been in different houses, that wouldn't have mattered. So it seems logical that those three were Gryffidors. Peter is anyone's guess. When Tonks was asked if she had been a prefect, she replied that her head of house didn't think she had a proper regard for the rules. Sounds like a Snapish remark. whizbang From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 05:54:41 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:54:41 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: <000001c3d96c$ddf25f10$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88545 Helen R. Granberry wrote: As much as I think it would be totally cool for McGonagall to be Hermione (and secretly married to Ron/Dumbledore), I'd have to see more evidence. I know this may sound hypocritical coming from me, but there isn't enough to suggest it. Most damning? The conversation with Dumbledore outside the Dursleys. If they are Ron and Hermione, this conversation would have been very, very different. This is my primary issue with Hermione=McG. Could she be pretending? I suppose... but why pretend when no one else was around? In the end though, when you compare the evidence for Ron=DD to Herm=McG, there is not nearly as much evidence. It's not that I don't want it to be so... especially when I really do believe Ron=DD and I'd hate to have him so lonely, it's just that there isn't enough evidence and there is still the problem of her acting completely clueless when she was alone with Dumbledore. vmonte responds: My take on the time travel theory is that something terrible happened during the time that Harry, Hermione, and Ron went to school. That at the end of the second war there are many casualties on both sides. (Harry and many other wizards, including Ron's mother, are probably killed.) Ron goes back in time (as DD) to stop several events from taking place. Because he is altering events subtly (other times not so subtly) DD is often caught off guard when his actions do not change events the way he planned. For example: I believe that DD tried to save Sirius from being killed, again. When Ron went back in time he decided that he was going to save Sirius, for Harry's sake. Ron (now as DD) forces Sirius to stay at headquarters so that whatever the event was that killed him originally does not take place. (Let's say Sirius was originally killed before the fight at the MOM. DD makes sure that Sirius is unable to be at the location of his 1st death. That date passes and DD thinks Sirius is now safe.) But, in forcing Sirius to stay at Order headquarters, he inadvertantly again condemns him to death. Sirius hates being forced to stay at Headquarters and so decides to leave and look for Harry--and gets killed again. (DD tells Harry in OOTP that he made a mistake by telling Sirius to stay at headquarters.) Ok, so Sirius dies again... I think that DD was also trying to save Harry's parents from dying but Sirius once again changed what happened originally. He did something different then he did in the first timeline--he now makes Peter the keeper. Cause and effect. Whenever DD changes the timeline the responses (or the effect) also changes in others. Yes, I am saying that Sirius messed up DD's plans twice (unintentionally of course). So, if Sirius unintentionally messed up DD's plan to save the Potter's by making Peter the keeper it is possible that McGonagall would show up at the Dursley's and say: 'Is it true that the parents (Potter's) are dead?'(not exact wording.) What is interesting to me about the Dursley scene is that McGonagall shows up at the Dursley's even though it is obvious that DD did not know that she was going to be there. Minerva is there because she knows the date that Harry's parents are killed, and knows that Harry grew up at the Dursley house! (She is Hermione!) What she doesn't know is that DD's plan to save the Potter's did not work. Changing history is a tricky thing--changing one thing can cause a multiple of other things to change as well. Now here are the real problems with my theory: I'm not really bothered by Hermione's hair color. Mostly because I had auburn hair as a child, and now it's very dark (when I don't dye it! HA). What does bother me is that I just heard somewhere that Rowling stated that none of the big three would become animagus. If the big three are Ron, Hermione, and Harry, then Hermione is not likely to be McGonagall (since she is an animagus). (Transfiguration seems a lot more difficult--involving potions or magic to change into an animals, and I don't think that Minerva is using those methods of transformation.) I do remember (not sure if it was in the book or movie) Hermione saying something about the polyjuice potion: That 'if mixed or used incorrectly could have lasting consequences' (not exact wording). Perhaps she will find that she inadvertently has changed her body chemistry. I don't know. I agree with you that Minerva hasn't done anything exciting yet--but I think she will in the next two books. 1. She already told Umbridge that Harry will become Auror if it is the last thing she does. I think Minerva will keep her word even if Umbridge is out of the picture. (In fact Minerva may have used the fight she had with Umbridge as an excuse to prepare Harry... Hermione is always helping Harry, isn't she. :) vivian From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 13 04:35:52 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:35:52 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88546 Carol wrote: Sawsan here: Hagrid does have powers, but after the Chamber of Secrets problem during his school year I think they might have stopped him from using them. In the Sorceror's stone he uses his umbrella to light a fire and he grew a pig tail on Dudley. So he must be a wizard. He just probably isn't allowed to use it that much considering his record. He did ask Harry not to mention it to anyone. Filch, who is a squib can't do any sort of Magic at all apparently, and neither can Mrs. Figg, who is another squib. As for squibs and magic, I think that, just as severelysigune wrote, they are the exact opposites of muggleborn wizards. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 05:10:48 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:10:48 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: <000501c3d98f$4d5431e0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: > Lisa: > I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school and she never gets in > trouble from the ministry of magic for it. I thought all magic is banned from use > outside of school grounds (if you're a student of course). > > Helen (LizardLaugh): > > She only does this in the movies, never in the books. Still the question of off-campus magic is a good one. Why do we so often hear of other students doing magic, but if Harry does anything the wall come crashing down. It seems that it's not students in general that are not allowed to do magic out of school. It's Harry in particular. Harry is the bomb. whizbang From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 05:22:11 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:22:11 -0000 Subject: The 3rd/7th son In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "madamepudifoot" wrote: > - PS/SS: knocked out during the wizards chess, misses Harry >fighting Quirrel > - CoS: wall falls between he and Harry, he is left behind with > Lockhart, misses Harry fighting Tom Riddle - > - PoA: gets knocked out when Pettigrew escapes, Hermione and Harry >go on to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak > - GoF: gone in spirit while harry fights the dragon in the first >task, is the person harry has to save in the second, watching the >match while harry finishes the 3rd task and goes to confront >Voldemort again > - OoP: addled by the brains in the MoM and misses the battle >between the DE's and the Order, as well as actually seeing Voldy >appear in the MoM > > Not sure what these mean, but they strike me as significant when >he is so close to Harry. Harry always faces Voldemort without his friends. That's not to say he doesn't have help, Dumbledore or Fawkes. But Ron isn't more missing than Hermione. In OotP, Ron won his first quidditch match while Harry and Hermione went into the forest to Grawp. Ron is not only overshadowed by his brothers. His best friend is Harry Potter. He needs to find his confidence in order to prepare for the war ahead. And he needs to be prepared for situations that Hermione can't help him with. Hermione isn't much for brooms or quidditch. Ron is developing his strengths and his self esteem and this is necessary. whizbang From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 05:42:19 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:42:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mark Evans Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88549 Andrew stated: >Hardback page 143 "The Hearing". > >"Dumbledore stood up and gave MRs. Figg his chair, conjuring a second one for > himself. >'Full name?' said Fudge loudly, when Mrs. Figg had perched herself nervously on > the very edge of her seat. >'Arabella Doreen Figg,' said MRs. Figg in her quavery voice. >'And who exactly are you?' said Fudge, in a bored and lofty voice. >'I', a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter lives,' said > Mrs. Figg. >'We have no record of any witch or wixard living in Little Whinging other than > Harry Potter,' said Madam Bones at once. 'That situation has always been > closely monitored, given...given past events.'" > > This seems to ruin any theories about Mark Evans. Yes and no. It all depends on what their definition of 'witch or wizard' is. Clearly, they define Harry as a wizard, even though he's not of legal age (17) yet, and he hasn't finished Hogwarts. However, Harry does use magic on a regular basis when he's in school, so that might be part of the definition. What we don't know is, do they define as a wizard someone who possesses magical ability, but perhaps hasn't used it yet, or is untrained in magic? If Mark is 10, then he's not of age yet to have gotten his letter inviting him to Hogwarts, and so he might not be defined as a wizard. Or...perhaps Mark Evans doesn't live in Little Whinging. Maybe he's a visitor to some relatives for the summer, and he's come on enough of a regular basis that others living in the area have come to know who he is. Or perhaps Mark isn't magical at all. But let's look at what Rowling tells us about him: "So who've you been beating up tonight?" Harry asked, his grin fading. "Another ten-year-old? I know you did Mark Evans two nights ago --" Now, there are two key things to note here. First, his age. Ten years of age is one year shy of the age when students get their invitation to Hogwarts, if they've got the magical gift. And she didn't have to give us that age either, if it wasn't intended to catch our attention. Harry could've said, "So who've you been beating up tonight? Another little kid? I know you did..." etc. And the second thing to note is the name. Rowling certainly has never been at a loss for names, and the majority of her names have meaning to them. So it's not likely that she ran out of ideas of what to call this toss-off character reference or forgot that she's used the surname 'Evans' before. The quote could have been, "I know you did Ajay Pancholy two nights ago --" And we wouldn't have thought anything of it. But the fact of the matter is, she specified an age for Mark that sets off alarms in the heads of people who are familiar with the HP universe details, and she used a name that she had previously stated in interviews as being the name of Harry's mother. And of course as we read further in OotP, we get to see Lily addressed as 'Evans' during the Pensieve sequence in Chapt. 28, which confirms this. So, from this we have three possibilities, as I see it -- 1) This information was given for a reason, and it will become important (or at least worthy of note) in book 6 or 7; 2) This is a red herring that Rowling's put in to tease her readers -- we'll never hear about Mark again after this one mention; or... 3) We'll hear about Mark again, but not in the way we expect it to happen. Actually, knowing how Rowling loves to keep readers on their toes, I think the 3rd option is the most likely. Remember how everyone was guessing about Mrs. Figg before book 5 was published, after all. But the rule of thumb I always keep in mind while reading these books is... Rowling never does anything for no good reason. Yes, she has her minor errors here and there. But this doesn't fall into that category. She knew full well what she was doing when she mentioned Mark here. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Find out everything you need to know about Las Vegas here for that getaway. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/vivalasvegas.armx From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 07:07:33 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:07:33 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Lily; Shark!Krum; Travelling by Floo Powder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > Kneasy wrote: > > < except who she might be related to.>> > > Phyllis responds: > > There is something about Lily that JKR herself has said will be > important (Boston Globe interview, October 18, 1999): > > Q: Do you know what Harry's parents look like? > > JKR: "Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his > father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and > that's very important in a future book." > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/1999/1099-bostonglob= e-loer.html > > I've been trying ever since to figure out what the importance of > those Lily eyes is. ..., for the life of me, I can't figure it out! > bboy_mn: I don't have a direct quote, but I know I've read this somewhere, and it may contain a clue to Harry's eyes. In another interview, JKR was complaining about the book cover art in some other country. Her complaint was that they portrayed Harry with OUT glasses. She said something to the effect that they obviously didn't realize how important his glasses are, and that his eyes are his weak point (very much paraphrased). It's an additional clue, but it still gets me no closer to understanding the significants of Harry's eyes. I would have bet that Harry's eyes were his strength, but apparently that would have been a mistaken assumption. That last book is REALLY going to be something when it finally pulls together all the bits and pieces that JKR has been laying down along the way. > > bboy_mn wrote: > > <> > > Don't forget, though, that when Harry coughed while saying "Diagon > Alley" in CoS, he wound up in Knockturn Alley. His intent wasn't to > go to Knockturn Alley ? he'd never even heard of it before. Based > on this, I do think that what you say when you step into the emerald > flames is quite important. > > ~Phyllis bboy_mn: I absolutely agree with your point about needing to speak clearly when you enter the emerald flames. My point was that subtleties can make a difference. For example, saying 'The Weasley' or 'The Burrow' would get you to the same place based on intent. The Floo magic would understand those to be the same place on the assumption you spoke clearly. Taken one step farther, intent would /guide/ the Floo magic when you said 'the Weasleys' and take you to Arthur Weasley's and not to Irving Weasley's. So the original message or command to the Floo Network must be clear, but it can be /guided by/ intent. When Harry used the Floo Network, he didn't have a clue what he was doing. Also note, if you read that section about Harry's Floo travel in CoS, you will see that he exited the Floo Stream right after he WISHED he was out of the Network. He had the desire and intent of exiting, and that's exactly what happened. So in a sense, his Floo travel was confused by not making a clear statement of destination, and further confused by his sudden desire to be out of the Network before reaching his assumed destination. Also, since one sees fireplaces along the way as you travel in the Floo Stream, it's reasonable to assume that you could pick one and desire to get out there rather than you original destination. Again, in that case, Floo travel would be guided by dynamic intent, and not just the words. Of course, I admit that I am stretching what is known about Floo travel with some substantial assumptions, but it does seem to follow a likely path of logic, at least to me. Just a few additional thoughts. bboy_mn From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Tue Jan 13 07:09:55 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:09:55 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88551 Hi, Geoff wrote: >Dedalus Diggle has been mentioned/seen at least > four times There may be others. For a very minor character, >he seems to make a lot of cameo appearances.... I echo Hermione's >question. What significance has he got? The name Dedalus comes from a Greek architect who built the Minoan labyrinth in which resided the famous Minotaur. It also means intricate in English. So far there has been nothing intricate about Diggle right? May be he will build something intricate in the next book. Or may be he will help in making Azkaban more secure for holding all the death eaters that Dumbledore caught, now that the dementors have revolted! Well, I did think giants will man Azkaban now but they seem to be no match for dementors, because of Hagrid, so they will require extra help wherever they can get it. And if all thse top security prisoners can't be kept at Azkaban, Diggle might probably build a new makeshift prison for them! spangb From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 07:53:51 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:53:51 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: Andrew: > I have been seeling lots of talk about Mark Evans. People saying > that he could be another wizard like Harry, or even perhaps one of > Harry's relatives. While re-reading through Order of the Phoenix I > came across something that seemed to ruin these ideas. > > Hardback page 143 "The Hearing". > > 'We have no record of any witch or wixard living in LIttle > Whinging other than Harry Potter,' said MAdam Bones at once. 'That > situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past > events.'" > > This seems to ruin any theories about Mark Evans. > Geoff: This has been discussed fairly extensively since OOTP came out. General consensus is that Mark is underage - he's not reached Hogwarts and it would seem that up and coming wizards only appear on the Ministry "radar screens" when that occurs. I hate to quote this message number again in case I seem to be advertising my own efforts but, in message 85255, I pulled together a lot of the information given by lots of other contributors to try and give a cohesive overview of the Evans theory. From jakejensen at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 08:07:00 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:07:00 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtb333" wrote: > I don't want to discourage > debate on this topic, but I would like someone to tell me why it > would matter if Snape is a Vampire or not. Fact: LV experimented with extending his life toward the end of the reign of terror Fact: LVs followers switched from being known as the Knights of [something or other] to the Death Eaters toward the end of the reign of terror Fact: LV laments (end of GoF) that one DE may never return. Fact: Snape left the DE toward the end of the reign of terror and joined with DD. Theory: LV started to experiment on his own followers toward the end of the reign of terror. There name, DE, literally meant that he was exposing some of them to potentially deadly things (in his experiments) Theory: Snape, being the picked on one at Hogwarts, was also picked on by LV. Theory: LV transformed Snape into some sort of vampire like creature (or just a plane old vampire). LV was trying to perfect an immortality technique, but it went wrong. Theory: Snape was either left for dead or fled following the experiment. He lived for a short time as an outcast. Hating himself and afraid to interact with others. Theory: DD finds Snape (through his spy network) and cleans him up. DD initially wants to find Snape for information, but ultimately feels sympathy for him. Snape proves his loyalty (maybe offering good information about LV) to DD. Theory: DD offers Snape a position as potions master at Hogwarts. Asks Snape to also act as a double-agent (either by milking Malfoy for information--which I think is the probably true--or just pretending to go back to the DE). Theory: Snape is full of inner rage, which continues to fester over the years. He hates LV, but he also hates most the OoTP. Both sides picked on him. He is torn between them. He doesn't even know which side he will stay loyal to in the end. DD might even know this. Theory: Snape and Harry will develop a relationship toward the end of the book. The Occ. lessons started to reveal how similar their backgrounds were (both raised in bad homes). Harry will eventually apologize to Snape for what his father did to him. Harry will extend the olive branch. Snape will seem to reject it. In the end, Snape will probably give his life battling LV or the DEs to save Harry. He will do this because (1) Harry apologized and (2) Lilly was the only person to ever stick up for him. This is the redemptive aspect of Snape's storyline. Theory: The HP books are all about forgivenss. That is what is in the room in the department of mysteries. That is what Lilly did (in her mind) before LV killed her. That is the ancient magic. Harry will have to find it. So will Snape. This, of course, is all theory. Please don't respond to this with, "where's the canon." It is my attempt to show you how some canon and the Snape!vampire theory might make sense. Why it might be important. This is how I hope it boils down. I don't think it would be cheap and I would really like to see Snape, wand in hand, a couple potions in his belly, battling it out. Afterall, Snape is my favorite character (besides the flying Ford) Jake From jwright at amdocs.com Tue Jan 13 06:22:50 2004 From: jwright at amdocs.com (pitaprh) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:22:50 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88554 > Christy's thoughts... > > I had always assumed that Dumbledore knew something was happening, and > as a member of the OoP, McGonagall was sent to do a task (go to this > house), similar to the end of GoF, where Dumbledore just gives > instructions to people and they obey without questioning him. > Dumbledore does seem surprised to see McGonagall, though, so perhaps > the order came from somebody else? Or maybe McGonagall had heard the > rumor and went to the one place she expected Dumbledore would go... > Her being there does seem kind of random, though. > It has been wondered if McGonagall is not related to Ms. Figg - the cats and the tartan references. Maybe she was visiting Ms. Figg when the events happened and so she was there looking for Dumbledore. That would give some explanation as to why he didn't know she was going to be there but also wasn't surprised when she was. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 13 06:25:42 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:25:42 -0000 Subject: Family members of important characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88555 Sawsan here; Even though I like to theorize about what might happen next to our hero, I try to remind myself of canon clues and JKR interviews. For some reason, I was under the impression that Harry has no other living relatives, other than the Dursleys. However I am rereading Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, and I paid special attention to the dialogue between Dumbledore and McGonagall on the night of Harry's arrival at Privet Drive. I did not see any sign of Dumbledore saying that he had no other living relatives. That makes me think that there is a possibility that he does have other living relatives, but for some reason he cannot be with them. Does anyone know anything from canon that states that he has no other living relatives? Also, I noticed that the surname Snape is not mentioned on the pureblood family tree of the Noble house of Black. That makes me think about the scene when Snape calls Lily Evans a mudblood, and she is shocked (I read it and thought that she was shocked because he of all people couldnt call her that). What do you think? Come to think of it, neither is the surname Slytherin; so if they all intermarry to keep the blood pure so to speak, then why weren't those names mentioned? (Perhaps I need to reread that chapter again to make sure about Slytherin, though I don't think I came across it.) In fact I didn't see any of the instructors' names from Hogwarts on the tree, if I am not mistaken. Any canon proof about any of this that I missed guys? Sawsan Issa who is desparate for JKR to finish this thing up so she can rest. From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jan 13 09:01:53 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:01:53 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" > wrote: > d why do the Vampire!Snape adherents take such > > an insistent approach to it being necessary to the plot and the > > story? There can be a vampire or not - > > > > > Still waiting for EVIDENCE... > > "Evidence" is any fact which might be helpful in forming a > conclusion or judgement. It seems to me that by "evidence" you > mean "evidence which leads to an inescapable conclusion." > That is not simply evidence. That is *proof*. The fact that other > explanations can be devised for the vampire Snape clues does > not exclude them as evidence. We must agree to differ on our definitions of evidence. Evidence and "clues" are not the same. Your theory is based on clues that you have chosen to extrapolate into a theory that Snape is a vampire. I'm not even convinced the clues are there unless you choose to see certain passing remarks and actions as supporting this theory, and then putting a spin on them to make them fit. > > Occam's razor is not a terribly useful instrument in > solving mystery stories, rather we must follow Sherlock Holmes > and procede by eliminating the impossible and going with what > remains, however unlikely. I am. And I have to admit I do not particularly believe that the sage of Baker Street would have much to do with this type of theorising. You cannot for instance eliminate the real possibility that Snape is a mixed up human being. > > I think we can eliminate the possibility that vampires will play no > major role in the story. If a major character turned out to be, > say, a heliopath, that would be sloppy storytelling, IMO, but the > grounds for a clandestine vampire are well-laid. And may also be a misleading blind alley to nowhere. I don't actually think the story is inescapably leading to vampire revelations, be they regarding Snape, Voldemort or any other character. That's not to say "There won't be vampires" it's merely to say that there is no certainty in my mind that there will be. And why oh why does there HAVE to be? Understand it is not essential to my enjoyment of the rest of the saga that there aren't - but I can live without a vampire. > > How vampires will be necessary to the plot we don't yet know, > because we know so little about JKR's vampires. After all, we > didn't know why it would be important that Hagrid is > kin to giants until the very end of Book Four. And it didn't turn out > to be size that was important. It doesn't have to be their appetite > for blood that makes vampires significant. > > As for what the Potterverse vampires *are*, we've been told that > centaurs make little distinction among humans, so it's > doubtful that vampires can be some sort of diseased human > like werewolves. They must be a race, like Giants or Veela. And > if so, then there may be "part" vampires. Just as an aside, "part" > creatures are not a JKR invention. The folklore of the British > Isles is full of them. I'm actually aware of the idea and concept of "part vampires" - the adherents of the vampire theory seem to be very confident that only they know the ins and outs of vampirism. Whilst I do not claim to be an expert, I would say that I am reasonably well informed - I have not made it a particular area of personal study. Why should I - I'm not trying to prove that Snape or anyone else in canon is a vampire or half of a one, or any part of one. I would personally say, with as much right to do so as any of the Vampire!Snape lobby that it is unlikely that JKR will pick up on the more obscure alleyways of vampire canon should she present the vampire mythos as part of her own. Why is that? Because generally she seems to actually play very litte with the standard concepts associated with magic creatures. Generally, in the HP universe, magical creatures behave largely as we expect them to: werewolves change with the moon, and are dangerous, and become ravening beasts without a shred of their own humanity - this is to some extent neutralised by the Wolfsbane potion - only partly though. That potion is a comparative innovation by the way. The merpeople live in the water. Giants are big and probably lack advanced social skills. And so on. Nothing out of the way of what I would call standard conceptions of these creatures in the general understanding. However, the Vampire!Snape lobby asserts that JKR will in fact make considerable alterations to all the standard traits of the vampire for the sake of her story. Now I am not saying that won't happen - but I will continue to insist that it is unlikely and ask what purpose it would serve in the story. > > So, if there is a vampire or part-vampire concealed among the > characters, where is it? Possibly Voldemort has transformed > himself into something like a vampire. But he cannot be a born > vampire. His parents were a wizard and a Muggle. If either of > Viktor Krum's parents were vampires surely someone at the > Third Task would have remarked on it. But we know nothing > about Snape's ancestry-- we don't even know if the people Harry > glimpsed in Snape's memory were his parents. Well that could be argued, like anything else when you want a theory to be true. For me, I'll take the description of the angry man to be Snape Senior, thanks. I believe the revelation there, was that Snape's childhood was unhappy and that he had been on the end of abuse at home, not unlike Harry. Not that he was brought up by distant relatives because his parents tended to lie around in coffins all day. And there's a new spin on the concept of neglectful upbringing I suppose. Again, another attempt to (as I see it) tweak vampire lore until it squeals for mercy: "Born vampire"? Vampires breed in a different way surely - by infection, or by dying outside the rites of the church - I understood standard sexual reproduction was denied to the vampire. But of course, the Vampire!Snape theorists know better than me. It's just I think if these overturnings of vampire lore are used in these books, in a world of child readers who probably have very strong conceptions of vampire lore (Buffy - and too bad if you all despise it - it exists), JKR is going to take a book and a half to explain. > > Now it won't make much difference to me if JKR comes up with > some other explanation for Snape's vampire-like characteristics, > but I do insist that such an explanation exist and be coherent. > Red herrings have to lead *somewhere*. The characters have to > be hiding *something.* It wouldn't be very satisfying to the reader > if no explanation for Bagman's furtive behavior in GoF had been > given, or if it had been only coincidence that Percy was in the > dungeons and trying to shush Ginny in CoS. Here's an explanation: He's tall, dark, pale, prefers the indoor life, doesn't particularly go for the great outdoors, non-sporting. Favours rather old-fashioned in Wizarding terms dress modes. Tends to move in a dramatic way. He's graceful and rather imposing in manner. I know a number of people like that in real life, indeed many academics tend to carefully cultivate such mannerisms. That doesn't make them vampires. Is Snape's outside persona "deliberately cultivated"? Not that much, though I do wonder what gave him the make over from the awkward spidery twitching adolescent in "Snape's Worst Memory" to the swooping and gliding person he is as an adult. Of course, you will not doubt assert that vampirism is the reason. Well go ahead. Don't expect me to give it houseroom though. And I also think that he may well adopt a "scary" persona to discourage anyone from getting too close. When your life is such a matter of secrecy then it is well to discourage the curious. > > If there is no hidden vampire at Hogwarts, then I want to know > why vampires are mentioned in all five of the books and both > school books. Why has JKR gone out of her way to assure us > that the Hogwarts Elves can accommodate special diets? Why, > though she's emphasized that most wizards cannot easily alter > their appearance,has she made a positive exception for "fangs"? No idea, but why should that lead to Snape being a vampire, unless you want it to.? > > Why has she taken such care not to show us Snape in the > sunlight, except for one occasion when he was in obvious > discomfort? Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan, so why > should he be wearing a "very grim smile" when his team is > going for the Final? The "grim smile" is really scraping the barrel for clues I think. And by the way, I do not think attendance at matches demonstrates he is an enthusiastic or even luke-warm Quidditch fan. However, his support of his own house is definite. Grimly smiling because he has to sit through what to him is a boring few hours perhaps, or because he is grimly satisfied that Slytherin are going to win. Show me a genuine smile on Snape's face, other than grim or twisted... Certainly not "Oh bloody hell, I have to sit in the sun, hope I don't melt and I'll certainly have to top up on the old potion if the match goes on for longer than three hours..." > I do think it's interesting that the anti-vampire contingent has said > their feelings about this are so strong because thinking of Snape > as a vampire would significantly change the way that they > perceive him. Could JKR devise a stronger illustration of the > insidious power of preconceived ideas? > There you go again - even opposition to the idea provides proof for you! Oh dear. In the immortal words as memorably paraphrased by Bart Simpson "Well, I guess you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't" Try this for size: In GOF, Percy Weasley recites some piece of official Ministry information and says that vampires are "non-wizarding part-humans" who can't even use a wand. So what was Snape brandishing in the Shrieking Shack? A cucumber? So he's a half vampire then, you will say. Which implies that either his mother or father is a vampire, if - and this is a pretty big huge if - vampires can sexually reproduce (and don't anyone even try to convince me of this - I got drawn into this, I will not come and play out if the game is called "vampire sexuality"). Am I expected to believe that the other parent would have polluted their pureblood bloodlines by miscegenation with a non-pureblood? How would that square with Slytherin pride? Vampire potion: Deus ex Machina - deluxe model with handtooled leather seats and nodding head dog in the back window. June Still not believing in Vampire!Snape - but cordially thanking the pro- Vampire!Snape contingent for giving her a reason to carefully study the issue and now feel 100% certain that she is right. "Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast" The White Queen,in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll. From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Jan 13 09:02:38 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:02:38 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Now it won't make much difference to me if JKR comes up with > some other explanation for Snape's vampire-like characteristics, > but I do insist that such an explanation exist and be coherent. > Red herrings have to lead *somewhere*. Of course an explanation exists. I just don't think most of the characteristics in question need more explanation then being direct consequences of Snapes personality. I see him as being somewhat introverted, and passionate about one thing - potions. I'd say that you don't see him outside often because he usually is inside doing research or working on new potions, and that often, while working on a potion, he will get so involved that he misses meals, and neglects his personal hygene and comfort (to the point of, say, not lighting a fire until he finishes what he is doing.) His cloak falls under a certain love of drama, and the ability to make a flamboyant entrance & exit... > > If there is no hidden vampire at Hogwarts, then I want to know > why vampires are mentioned in all five of the books and both > school books. Why has JKR gone out of her way to assure us > that the Hogwarts Elves can accommodate special diets? Why, > though she's emphasized that most wizards cannot easily alter > their appearance,has she made a positive exception for "fangs"? Because there likely will be a vampire visiting at some point. Quirrell claims to have had an encounter with a vampire in Romania. Charlie has been repeatedly mentioned as being in Romania, and is even working for the Order there now. I rather expect Charlie to show up at Hogwarts with a vampire in tow at one point or another... > Why has she taken such care not to show us Snape in the > sunlight, except for one occasion when he was in obvious > discomfort? Because he's usually inside, working with potion components that really shouldn't be exposed to direct sunlight? (Why else would they be stored in the dungeons?) > Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan, so why > should he be wearing a "very grim smile" when his team is > going for the Final? > Well, the Gryffindors are walking on the pitch when this is mentioned, including one Harry Potter, looking exactly like his father in Quidditch gear, with the difference in eye color not obvious at a distance. His mind is obviously flashing back to another era, and another Potter. Besides, Snape is not known for enthusiastic smiles. "Snape beamed down at the Slytherins from the first row, a twinkle in his eye" would be totally OOC. His canon smiles to date appear to be: A very grim smile, a sneering smile, a tight-lipped smile, an unpleasant smile, a twisted smile, an odd, twisted smile, and a horrible smile. He's not winning "Most charming smile" anytime soon. > I do think it's interesting that the anti-vampire contingent has said > their feelings about this are so strong because thinking of Snape > as a vampire would significantly change the way that they > perceive him. Could JKR devise a stronger illustration of the > insidious power of preconceived ideas? Doing it twice to the same character seems overkill, though. If anything, making Snape be part vampire would weaken his character. Then we could blame all of the bad parts of Snapes character on his vampire side. If someone is a vampire, it should be someone who would be more interesting as a vampire. Olivander? Or perhaps Harry himself? ("Don't be stupid, you haven't got fangs... you were lying in bed, you weren't attacking anyone...) --Arcum, who honestly wasn't planning on posting to this thread From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 10:02:48 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:02:48 -0000 Subject: Who is Najini? And is she/he an animagus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88558 Just wondering if Najini,Voldemort's snake,is male or female? (It sounds female but I'm not certain.) Also wondered if this creature was someone's animagus and if so whose? From belijako at online.no Tue Jan 13 10:15:42 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:15:42 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: <000501c3d98f$4d5431e0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88559 Lisa wrote: I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school (once on the train in the first book and again in Diagon Alley in the second book) and she never gets in trouble from the ministry of magic for it. Anyone have a clue as to why not? I thought all magic is banned from use outside of school grounds (if you're a student of course). I'm guessing because it's not a charm that hurts anyone and is quite minor... but that's just my guess. Berit replies: Well, come to think of it; Hogwarts students are doing a lot of magic outside of school grounds; how many times haven't we seen Harry w/friends and Draco w/friends jinxing and hexing each other on the train? No reference to any Ministry officials swooping down on them on these occasions. And remember Ron attempting to turn Scabbers yellow? And let's not forget Ginny cleaning up their robes with a charm after Neville squirted them all with Stinksap from his Mimbletonia plant. That was all happening on the Hogwarts train, Also, I thought that Hermione fixed Harry's broken glasses in Diagon Alley once, or is that movie contamination? To me it seems that the "no magic rule" does not apply to the Hogwarts express and Diagon Alley which are places within the magical world. But once out in the muggle world, the underage students have to restrain themselves. It makes sense, as the reason why the students are not allowed to do magic during the summer holiday is probably to lessen the risk of muggles observing magic being done. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 03:21:20 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:21:20 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88560 rredordead at aol.com said: >Which got me wondering just who is Harry's current legal guardian? >The Dursley's right? Sirius was named his Godfather, and the role of >Godfather is to assume the role of parent if the parents die, but >doesn't a God parent have to legally adopt the child to assume that >role? We know Sirius didn't have the time to adopt Harry as he was >in prison, a fact that would disqualify him form adopting a child >anyway. So I assume the Dursleys have legal control over Harry until >he is 18. As you say, this applies in Muggle law. I'm not sure it applies in WW law. I think a godfather must have legal standing in the wizarding world, because Sirius, even on the run from the law, was able to sign a permission form for Harry to visit Hogsmeade *and have it accepted* by both Dumbledore and MacGonigall. Although both of them were sympathetic to Harry, they wouldn't allow him into Hogsmeade until he acquired a signature that they considered that of a legitimate guardian. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 13 10:11:38 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:11:38 -0000 Subject: Come again? Snape's a Quidditch Fan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88561 "Amanda" wrote: << Okay, I want canon for "Snape's an enthusiastic Quidditch fan." This is stated with such certainty--where'd it come from? I think he enjoys the House rivalries, but my take has been that Quidditch is just one of the vehicles through which Slytherin should make its way to the top--rather than any liking of the sport for itself.>> Pippin wrote: << Argh, can't find my QTTA, but doesn't it say that you have to have a thorough knowledge of the game to referee? >> That is right; but then he doesn't referee very well, does he? And whereas everybody, including Snape's colleagues, thinks that he is just doing his best to be nasty and keep Gryffindor from winning the Cup, it turns out he in fact insisted on refereeing so as to keep an eye on Potter and ward off Quirrell's spells. Of course he could combine the two motives. But still. If we combine the OoP scene of little Snape having trouble flying a broomstick with his doubtful refereeing, maybe our conclusion should be that he isn't good at Quidditch at all and only cares for it to the extent that it helps his House on its way to glory (which is evidently something he works very hard to achieve and has done so successfully for at least seven years). Yours severely, Sigune - who is convinced in her heart that Snape doesn't care for Quidditch at all and prefers spending his time subduing the most terrible books in the Restricted section of Hogwarts library. From yellobanana08 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 10:16:07 2004 From: yellobanana08 at hotmail.com (neisra2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:16:07 -0000 Subject: Maroon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88562 Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so frequently associated with Ron? When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is almost always maroon. Does this color symbolize anything? neisra From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 13 12:32:27 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Anne) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:32:27 -0000 Subject: Maroon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88563 [neisra asks] Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so frequently associated with Ron? When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is almost always maroon. Does this color symbolize anything? [Anne Responds} Hmmmm...one guess is one that goes on the assumption by a lot of us that Rowling uses anything from names to colors for symbology... 'Maroon' is a shade of deep red---red is one of the colors of Gryffindor...and, if (warning: movie contamination), they got the color of the 'R' on Ron's sweater right in regards to the books (anyone remember if it was gold or yellow in the book?), then this might be one of Rowling's ways of reinforcing that Ron is indeed a Gryff to the bone...(Not to mention red hair and Maroon tend to go together rather well--who is to say Molly doesn't have a good grasp of color and fashion sense? Her knitting might be another matter though...^^;...) And for those who are adhering to the 'Ron as Dumbly" theory....doesn't Dumbly often wear maroon robes....? Or is that a mis-remembering on my part...? *Sigh* stuck at work with no HP books again....I really need a pocket version of the books to keep up with you guys....;) Anne From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 13 12:51:55 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Anne) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:51:55 -0000 Subject: Who is Najini? And is she/he an animagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88564 [Vmonte asks] > Just wondering if Najini,Voldemort's snake,is male or female? > (It sounds female but I'm not certain.) > Also wondered if this creature was someone's animagus and if so whose? [Anne] **Notes that in the Amercian version they used "Nagini" as the spelling for the name...** I'm not sure if it's male or female, although I beleive I remember that in myths from India, the 'Nagini' are the female half of the Naga species--a mystic race that has the upper part of a body and the lower part of a snake. Going by that description, the guess would be female... As for Animagus....possible...or perhaps she is a shifted Naga herself--I seem to remember that Naga have the ability to become full snakes---although, admittedly, that might be a contamination belief from too many years of playing D&D and White Wolf RPG's...^^; The only problem with her being animagus is the same problem everyone is having with Mrs. Norris or anyone else being one at this point if they haven't already been 'revealed'--Rowling made it clear from several characters and sources within the story that Animagi are so rare that it would tend to argue against the possibility...Rita Skeeter was already a 'surprise' one...and like so many of the possibilities we kick around on the board...it would be cool, it would be possible, if the clues we're using are being read correctly... But it could be overkill...;) We'll probably just have to wait and see... Anne From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 13:15:23 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:15:23 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: spangb > The name Dedalus comes from a Greek architect who built the > Minoan > labyrinth in which resided the famous Minotaur. It also means > intricate in English. So far there has been nothing intricate about > Diggle right? Geoff: The other thing which occurred to me - having forgotten the labyrinth connection - is that Dedalus/Daedalus was also the father of Icarus, who made artificial wings and flew too near the sun. Any connections here? From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Jan 13 13:15:24 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:15:24 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight 2 King--Hermione is McGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200401131415.24300.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88566 > Kzspot: > I thought Isaac Asimov covered time travel somewhere by saying you > couldn`t meet your future selves without putting a severe strain on > the time fabric? R. Heinlein and F. Leiber covered Time in other way, in fact meeting future or past selves is not a problem at all. Every author establishes his own rules, so we should stick to what Rowling says. Silmariel From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 13:22:19 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:22:19 -0000 Subject: Family members of important characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: Sawsan Issa; However I am rereading Harry > Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, and I paid special attention to the > dialogue between Dumbledore and McGonagall on the night of Harry's > arrival at Privet Drive. I did not see any sign of Dumbledore saying > that he had no other living relatives. Geoff: Well, there's this for starters..... "'Yes,' said Professor McGonagall, 'And I don't suppose you're going to tell me why you're here, of all places?' 'I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the /only family/ he has left now.' (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.15 UK edition) Although, as I have said more than once before, there might be cousins etc. further across the family tree who are rather distant in genealogical terms. I have quoted my own example of finding second cousins about ten years ago when my father died, of whom I had no knowledge. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 13 13:32:46 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:32:46 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboy_mn: > I think you are stretching to get an Egypt connection, and I will > point out that you missed one very important Egyptian creature; Harry > has also encountered a SPHINX in the Tri-Wizards maze. > > Other beast and beings- > > * Sphinx - in the Tri-Wizards maze. A Sphinx that would 'pounce' if he > got the riddle wrong. > * werewolf - > * Hungarian Horntail - > * Blast-Ended Skrewts - I think they certainly deserve a mention. > * MANY Hundreds of Giant Spiders - > * Merepeople - who, in Harry's opinion, seem armed and quite capable > of doing him harm. > * the giant Squid - > * Giants - > > * Assorted dark creatures like Grindylows, Red Caps, etc... > * Boggarts - > * Mountain Trolls - certainly seem dangerous, far more dangerous that > the valley trolls that were used for security ;). > > * Assorted other creatures like Hags who seem to move about freely in > the wizard world, but are none-the-less known to eat small children > when given a chance. > > Like I said the Egypt connection seems like a stretch, but I'm not > willing to flat out say it is wrong; the clues are there. > I'm not certain that you've grasped my point here, in fact looking at the list of creatures you've produced, I'm pretty certain that you haven't. Either that or I've missed your point. Is it me or is it you? The idea I was throwing onto the site was not a list of creatures that *could* attack Harry, or the creatures that he had reason to be cautious or afraid of. It was that there seemed to be a trend - if a creature *did* attack him, then looking back through the canon he had usually met a similar or related creature in a less threatening or even friendly context. So, for example he has a dangerous encounter with the Hungarian Horntail; look back and he has a non-dangerous encounter with Norbert. Same with Fluffy who was preceded by Fang, and so on. And I mentioned the exceptions - Skrewts and Trolls. So far as I am aware, Harry has never been attacked by a Hag, Squid, (has he met one, face to face?), Merman (though they did warn him off), Werewolf or Giant. Boggarts are a bit questionable, too. No-one seems to have evidence proving that Boggarts have the same powers as the beings they mimic or if they copy just to frighten and intimidate. I'm grateful that you've mentioned the Sphinx. Splendid! Thank you! I felt that PP, Ron and Bill, while possibly indicative, were not *direct* Egyptian links to Harry. Can't think how I missed it. The Sphinx is a direct link, and true to my hypothesis, it does not attack him. In fact it appears fairly passive and gives him the opportunity to walk away unscathed if he wants to. Only if he gives a wrong answer will it attack and it warns him of this. In fact, it gives him a broad smile when he answers correctly. Nice Sphinxy! Now, to raise my hypothesis to the level of theory, we need Harry to face mortal danger from a being with an Egyptian connection some- where in the next two books. Of course, a Werewolf would do just as well, as would a few other creatures he's already met and where he did not have to defend himself against overt attack, but I favour the Egyptian motif myself. More scope for the exotic. Kneasy From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 13 13:58:05 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:58:05 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88569 {Geoff says} I have quoted my own example of finding second cousins about ten years ago when my father died, of whom I had no knowledge. {Anne replies} It does raise a question though...although I know you can come up with 'long lost' relatives in RL....I wonder that Dumbly would have been so careless as to not completely research Harry's 'family tree'--even long before Harry's parents were killed--after all, since he set up the Fidelus for James and Lily, it shows that he knew full well Harry could very quickly become parentless...after all, not even Fidelus is foolproof, as Sirius's mistake and Peter's betrayal shows... So...Mark Evans might actually be 'coincidental' in his name...or else SO far removed from the family that it might not even count...? Just an alternate presentation... I supposed I'm just wondering, (once again--like in certain other theory threads), what use a sudden 'second cousin' popping up in Harry's life would serve...other than making all of the readers who pay attention to this sort of thing crawl the walls while we look for possible explanations....somehow, I can actually see Rowling, if she's even remotely aware that we're all out here trying to dissect her mind through the books, throwing Mark in just to give us fits... Also...he's only mentioned in that one chapter, isn't he? **Sorry, but I only dimly remember Dudley and Co beating up on someone right before the Dementor incident--the name didn't even register**...so I don';t think we have enough to go on just yet... Of course, if I want to be totally perverse with the theories (not being sarcastic...just playing here with what I've read the past few weeks here...^^) ...Let's see....Mark Evans...long lost cousin....Snape's name anagrams into "Perseus Evans"...and the theory there is that he's Lily's brother somehow...hhmmmmm.... So...Mark is Severus's son? And that would make Both Mark and Sev related to Harry--as uncle and first cousin, if Sev is really Lily's brother...although it would still work if Sev was a first cousin and not a brother--which would also explain why Lily and Sev didn't know they were related...and why Sev is REALLY grouchy...he has a son of his own to protect here, and in a really bad position to try....and... Oi...I think I better stop now...^^; Anne who believes: Snape is not a vamp. Just wholly messed in the head (wouldn't you be too if you lived his life?) Lily and Sev aren't related (although the anagram is interesting), although think it likely despite his snarling at her in the pensive scene that he MIGHT have actually liked her (But there's nowhere near enough proof for me to buy into it) Ron MIGHT be Dumbly...but that would just make my head spin...since I'm more convinced he's likely to loose his life following Harry on one of their escapades one too many times, and time travel is a sticky wicket no matter how it's explained and how the rules are set up... That we might even see Sirius again, since there was no 'body' (no body, no crime)... **Pauses** Hmmm...an idea....maybe HE'S the vamp....? Too much time around those soul sucking Dementors (Look, guys--spiritual vampirism). Now that WOULD be tragic...especially if that nice temperament of his is still intact... **One note here on descriptives since 'pale skin' often comes up as a reason sited for whoever being a vamp...** Snape's skin is described as 'sallow'..which, according to the dictionary, means 'yellow' and/or 'unhealthy'....yellow skin points to jaundice, which in turn points most often to kidney and/or liver problems....something I doubt the average Vamp (or half vamp) has to worry about (although alcoholics do) By comparison, Sirius's skin is depicted as 'pale' and 'waxy' after his stint in Azkaban....both traits of the skin of a bloodless corpse...(Although, to be fair, it's also once way to describe someone who hasn't seen the sun in a loooooong time) Anyhow, I'm going to shut up now...lol Anne (again) From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 13 14:20:46 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:20:46 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88570 Let me respond to some of the suggestions made against the idea that the boys were in Slytherin: (1) MaGonagall saying that everyone in one House were "one family" so James would not treat his "brother" Snape like that. Just because they were in the same House doesn't mean they have to like each other. Not all family members love each other. Sirius was alienated from his real family. And sibling rivalry is not rare. I have no trouble thinking that Snape and James hated each other even if they were in the same House. (2) What James did to Snape was no worse than what Fred and George did to Umbridge. Maybe. But I still have trouble seeing Fred and George sending their best friend off to kill someone who doesn't know what he is doing, like Sirius did with Remus, as one of their jokes. I think a whole different level of nastiness is involved. (3) Well, maybe James and Sirius seem like they are in Slytherin but REMUS doesn't and so they all weren't. I haven't paid as much attention to Remus as the other two so I don't know how to respond. But I do remember that some time back, there were some postings here on the possiblity that Remus zapped Sirius through the veil, not Bellatrix. (I can't find them with the "Search" function -- I can't find anything with that "Search" function.) So some people must have seen something Slytherin-like in Remus's personality. Bobby From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 13 14:31:34 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:31:34 -0000 Subject: Knight2King--Hermione is McGonagall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88571 I just want to register my protest of the use of time travel as a major plot device. JKR used it once in POA to good effect, but to make it part of the solution at the end of the series is a different matter. The theorists have Dumbledore/Ron trying to change little things and not doing it very well. But if you can go back in time to change history, why don't you just go back and kill off Tom Riddle as a baby? You would save all those witches and wizards lost in two wars. This would be a "major" change of history and not a "subtle" one, but if you can change history what is the difference really? From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 14:45:30 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:45:30 -0000 Subject: Religion in the WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: (snip) I do wish that JKR would include a nice Arab > Muslim person in the series. Every where I turn we are so horribly > portrayed :((. I know that there is a character named Ali Bashir in > the HP series, but he had some sort of criminal activity with flying > carpets if I am not mistaken :((. Ginger: As much as I don't like the idea of inserting a token character, I totally agree with you regarding the lack of "good" Arabs in literature in general. Ali Bashir's misdeed was trying to smuggle them into the UK, where they are illegal. But on a more positive note, GoF gives us Hassan Mostafa, the International Association of Quidditch Chairperson. In QTTA, p. 30, 31, we find that a referee has to be an expert flier, able to watch 14 players at once. In Britain, they have to "take rigorous flying tests and an exacting written examination of the rules of Quidditch, and prove, through a series of intensive trials, that they will not curse or jinx offensive players even under severe pressure." Also note that the aforementioned test covers over 700 rules! I'm sure the international standard is at least as high. The only negative thing mentioned is his reaction to the Veela, but given that nearly every man in the place shared that reaction, I don't think we can judge him too harshly ;) So there he is, if not the "good" Arab, certainly a highly respected one! I didn't forget that you asked for an "Arab Muslim", but since religion in the WW is so vague, I only answered what I could. Ginger, who (jumping continents) wishes a Happy Day of Knut to any who may be celebrating. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 15:15:24 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:15:24 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88573 > June > > Still waiting for EVIDENCE... Ginger, (who btw, is not a lawyer, just a factory worker and convenience store clerk, but thanks anyway): So am I, June, so am I. Unfortunately, JKR doesn't give the evidence until the book in which it is needed. She only lays hints and possibilities. I know others have pointed out the Sirius and Scabbers hint-laying in book one which comes to fruition in book 3, so I won't bore you with details. The vague (and sometimes really, really vague) hints have been enumerated, but I have seen a bit of a pattern. All books: mention of vampires, giving Snape *really* vague vampire- like descriptions. And I mean *really, really* vague. Books 1 and 2: (setting the groundwork) only what is above Books 3 and 4: (building upon the groundwork by presenting parallels) setting a precedent for: Characters who are revealed to be something out of folklore (Lupin, Hagrid) The possibility that magic or "breeding" may alter the state of the person effected when compared to traditional views (Lupin's potion, Hagrid's half/half nature) Book 5: (building on the groundwork with things related to the subject) giving a "way out" of traditional views using established canon (the replenishing potion, which could be used to alter the need to feed, and is consistant with Lupin's potion as a magical "way around" tradition. Book 6: If Snape is a vampire, I predict a continuation of the above. Book 7: Again, if Snape is a vampire, the revelation, followed by half the list telling the rest of us "I told you so" and Pippin becoming Prime Minister. Just kidding on the last part. Evidence? Not a bit. Hints? Clues? They're there. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. But it is such fun to discuss, and so like JKR not to give us solid, verifiably facts until needed. Ginger, Vampires, vampires everywhere, and nary a nape to peck From thren at subreality.com Tue Jan 13 14:25:22 2004 From: thren at subreality.com (Thren) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:25:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Previous Grimauld Place & Inheritance Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4003FFD2.1000104@subreality.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88574 rredordead at aol.com said: >>Which got me wondering just who is Harry's current legal guardian? >>The Dursley's right? Sirius was named his Godfather, and the role of >>Godfather is to assume the role of parent if the parents die, but >>doesn't a God parent have to legally adopt the child to assume that >>role? We know Sirius didn't have the time to adopt Harry as he was >>in prison, a fact that would disqualify him form adopting a child >>anyway. So I assume the Dursleys have legal control over Harry until >>he is 18. >> >> And then Janet said: >I think a godfather must have legal standing in the wizarding world, because >Sirius, even on the run from the law, was able to sign a permission form for >Harry to visit Hogsmeade *and have it accepted* by both Dumbledore and >MacGonigall. > And now Thren says: Sirius was his godfather, which was played up many times much to my annoyance (godparents, as I understand it, are meant to ensure that the child is raised knowing/according to their particular religion- that's how it was explained to me, anyhow). But he was also Harry's legal guardian, which you will see if you check the end of POA when they're in the tunnel between the Shrieking Shack and the Whomping Willow (I don't have my books with me, so no quote, sorry). Sirius says he was *also* made Harry's guardian in case anything happened. It makes the mind boggle, really. If Harry hadn't gone to the Dursleys, he would have been Sirius' to raise. O.O I can well imagine a child raised by Sirius (a 22ish, pre-Azkaban, motorcycle-riding Sirius, no less), and it's not a pretty picture. :P From CoyotesChild at charter.net Tue Jan 13 15:22:02 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:22:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d9e8$febaf050$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88575 Iggy de-cloaking for a second: I enjoy reading all of these theories in this topic... so I will apologize for the short length of this letter when I express this one comment: Didn't JKR say that only one of Harry's friends would go on to teach? (And, I feel that Neville is the most likely... and he would be teaching Herbology...) Would this not defeat the possibility of Ron = Dumbledore AND Hermione = McGonagall as both being possible? (If not actually eliminating both... One is still possible, since if Neville is not the one to teach, I can actually see him coming even more strongly into his own during the next two books and becoming an Auror.) If one of the theories is eliminated, I would see it much more likely that Hermione = McGonagall, since we haven't really heard anything about her family. (Also, hair color and personality can change over time, lord knows mine has... but they both seem to feel the same about Harry.) We've already heard things about Dumbledore's family. (Unless, of course, Albie is the "missing" Weasley son... but I can't see that since Alberforth isn't a Weasley-like name, and I can't see Molly not having Albie over for dinner or even acknowledging his existence.) 'Nuff said. Iggy McSnurd (*disappears with a swirl of his invisibility cloak*) From CoyotesChild at charter.net Tue Jan 13 16:02:05 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:02:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3d9ee$9762bc20$4e60bf44@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88576 > Kneasy > > I'm grateful that you've mentioned the Sphinx. Splendid! Thank you! > I felt that PP, Ron and Bill, while possibly indicative, were not *direct* > Egyptian links to Harry. Can't think how I missed it. Iggy de-cloaking for a second: The sphinx is depicted as having the head of a woman and the body of a lion (large cat.) He has met an example earlier... a few in fact. Mrs. Figg (who is very close to her cats), and Hermione, who is very close to her ginger cat, Crookshanks. (Ginger, btw, does happen to be a color only slightly different than that of a lioness. Also Sphinxes are incredibly intelligent... just like Hermione is.) While it does not end in an attack, the encounter definitely has the overtone of quietly veiled lethal power. As for trolls, he has encountered a lesser version... Dudley. Large, stupid, ugly, brutish, bullying, humanoid type creature. (Of course, Vernon would qualify too...) BTW: For your question about Boggarts being able to copy the powers of what they copy, I think that they can copy some... since Harry remembered more and more of his parents deaths as he trained against the Boggart, not in his encounters against the Dementors. (IIRC) > Kneasy > > Now, to raise my hypothesis to the level of theory, we need Harry to > face mortal danger from a being with an Egyptian connection some- > where in the next two books. Iggy here: He has already. While Nagani has an Indian name (and is probably from there), you also need to remember that cobras also exist in Egypt as well. The Red Spitting Cobra (Naja pallida)ranges in Southern Egypt (which, IIRC, is near where the Pyramids are located...) Egyptian Cobras (Naja haje), also known as the Aspis, has a maximum length of about 3 meters (about the size of Nagani... who can be expected to be larger than normal, as wizards familiars commonly are...), and range all over Egypt in almost any environment other than purely desert. (They have even been spotted swimming in the Mediterranean.) Those are the two main cobra species found in Egypt. Harry has been in danger from an Egyptian creature connection. On the other hand, he has not encountered something from India in a passive situation. (Well, unless you count the Patil sisters... *grin*) 'Nuff said. Iggy McSnurd (*disappears once again with a swirl of his invisibility cloak*) From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 16:09:07 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:09:07 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione/Underage magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Lisa wrote: > > I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school (once on > the train in the first book and again in Diagon Alley in the second > book) and she never gets in trouble from the ministry of magic for > it. Anyone have a clue as to why not? Berit replies: > > > Also, I thought that Hermione fixed Harry's broken glasses in Diagon > Alley once, or is that movie contamination? To me it seems that > the "no magic rule" does not apply to the Hogwarts express and Diagon > Alley which are places within the magical world. But once out in the > muggle world, the underage students have to restrain themselves. It > makes sense, as the reason why the students are not allowed to do > magic during the summer holiday is probably to lessen the risk of > muggles observing magic being done. > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Julie: I think Hermione's use of the charm is movie contamination. I saw the movies before I read the books and I remember that as standing out. I agree with your conclusion that magic probably can be used in the "protected" areas of the train and Diagon Alley. However, I remember reading where the Weasley kids practiced Quidditch in their field at the Burrow. That's how they knew Ginny could play. Wonder how they got by with that? (I do not have my books with me so I cannot reference book/page. I think it was OotP but it may have been GOF.) Seems like Draco also talked about flying, as he was upset about not being able to take his broom to Hogwarts his first year. From catherinemck at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 16:50:09 2004 From: catherinemck at hotmail.com (catherinemckiernan) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:50:09 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: <83.2fc270b.2d3480e7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, aiiesdelamour at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/12/2004 5:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > christyj2323 at y... writes: > Second, I can NOT see Remus Lupin as a member of Slytherin house. He > has none of the qualities for that. Remus is... well... almost > anything but a Slytherin. > Crystal then wrote (hi Crystal)... However, a part of me still refuses > to entirely give in to the theory, and I agree that Lupin is one of my primary > reasons for it -- I could see Remus easily being a Ravenclaw, but that aside, > I think he would belong in Gryffindor. > > I just don't see him as having the qualities that would make the Sorting Hat > choose to place him in Slytherin, (snipped further Sirius-related Gryffindor thoughts) Now me... Hmm, Remus is the tricky one, because he doesn't obviously fit the qualities of cunning and ambitious. However even attempting to conceal the fact he's a werewolf is an ambitious undertaking, and to manage to do it (alone at first, then with help from his friends) takes cunning. Moreover if all 4 of the gang and Snape were in Slytherin together, it might explain why the 3 top dogs are friends with Peter ? they're isolating Snape by gratuitously being friends with everyone except him. It would also explain how Sirius in GoF knew the identities of Snape's Slytherin friends. Ultimately, I sit on the fence, but I agree with those who think that some sort of house surprise is definitely going to be sprung upon us. What about sorting little Mark Evans in Slytherin?! Catheirne McK From cantor at vgernet.net Tue Jan 13 16:55:20 2004 From: cantor at vgernet.net (cantoramy) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:55:20 -0000 Subject: Book Cover Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88579 Ok. After almost 7 months, I give up. I cannot decipher the back cover of the regular American edition of OOP and I have some questions about the special American edition book cover. About the regular edition: I know that the trio at the bottom are Moody, Tonks and Lupin and that Sirius is to the left above them. Are the swirly things supposed to be orbs? I thought the description of the orbs made them like snow-globes, which these things do not resemble at all. And what does the silhouette in the doorway at the top-right of the page mean? On the other side of the doorway the image looks like a ribbon of smoke. About the special edition: My guess is that the rat on the bottom of the back cover is Peter, the person in the window at the top of the house is Sirius, the shadow in the bottom left window is Kreacher, the 2 Dementors that attacked Harry are at the bottom of the front cover (on the inside fold),and that the paper afire in front of the house is Dumbledore's instructions about the address of the house which Moody destroyed (thank you, FoxyDoxy). Are those doxies that decorate the house(one is headless and more that one seem to have one wing or a damaged wing)? Are those Dumbledore's glasses hanging from the fence? I know this was probably discussed at length before, but try to do a search with Yahoo. Feh! Thanks loads in advance! cantoramy From whoneeds_sleep at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 08:08:45 2004 From: whoneeds_sleep at hotmail.com (Victoria Nece) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:08:45 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > "Dumbledore stood up and gave MRs. Figg his chair, conjuring a > second one for himself. > 'Full name?' said Fudge loudly, when Mrs. Figg had perched herself > nervously on the very edge of her seat. > 'Arabella Doreen Figg,' said MRs. Figg in her quavery voice. > 'And who exactly are you?' said Fudge, in a bored and lofty voice. > 'I', a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter > lives,' said Mrs. Figg. > 'We have no record of any witch or wixard living in LIttle > Whinging other than Harry Potter,' said MAdam Bones at once. 'That > situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past > events.'" > > This seems to ruin any theories about Mark Evans. But Mark Evans is only ten -- perhaps he will receive a letter from Hogwarts on his eleventh birthday. He could be (and probably is) born to muggle parents, and thus would have no knowledge of his future. Were this the case, Evans would not be a wizard yet, and thus there would be no record of him. Victoria From RACH911 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 13:43:48 2004 From: RACH911 at aol.com (rach9112000) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:43:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione at Grimmauld Place (was: Hermione is McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88581 > Hi vmonte. That does make sense. Either way, I'm relatively sure > that McGonagall is coaching Hermione. I think it's one reason > Hermione is so nervous in OotP. My guess is that Hermione was told > to encourage Harry to give DADA lessons. The whole Dumbledore's > Army idea was probably entrusted to her to make happen. > > whizbang I also believe Hermione was told to set up the DADA classes. I've always though it suspicious as to why Hermione was at Grimmauld place over the summer. She hardly sees her family as it is so I'm sure there must have been a reason for her to spend summer away from them. I believe she was told to set up a group by Dumbledore, there are a few reasons to back this up: 1) Already mentioned but simply the fact that she spent summer at Grimmauld place. 2) Dumbledore had to tell Hermione to convince Harry to take the classes because Dumbledore knew that he himself could not let himself speak to Harry because of the Voldermort/Legilmency risk. 3)I can't find the page reference but there's a point at the start of the book where Harry, Ron and Hermione are discussing the Ministry of Magic and Ron jokes about forming an army against them but Hermione does not laugh with them. 4) She also knew that Dumbledore didn't want a big scene being made about the fact that hagrid was not there for the start of the school year, prior to them having it confirmed later. Dumbledore probably warned Hermione not to let Harry go asking too many questions because once again he was not able to tell him himself. These are all I can think of at the moment, Rachel. From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 13:12:45 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:12:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maroon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88582 > [neisra asks] > >Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so frequently >associated with Ron? > >When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is >almost always maroon. > >Does this color symbolize anything? > >[Anne Responds} >'Maroon' is a shade of deep red---red is one of the colors of >Gryffindor...and, if (warning: movie contamination), they got the >color of the 'R' on Ron's sweater right in regards to the books >(anyone remember if it was gold or yellow in the book?), then this >might be one of Rowling's ways of reinforcing that Ron is indeed a >Gryff to the bone...(Not to mention red hair and Maroon tend to go >together rather well--who is to say Molly doesn't have a good grasp >of color and fashion sense? Her knitting might be another matter >though...^^;...) You'll recall that Ron comments in Philosopher's/Sorceror's Stone when he tells Harry that he's got his own Weasley sweater (I can't quote the passage either, since like Anne, I'm at work without books) that he always gets maroon sweaters, and he doesn't like maroon. I saw that as yet another indication that being the 2nd youngest child and the youngest boy in the Weasley clan, Ron often gets lost in the shuffle, and his desires go unnoticed or get passed over. So I'd say that maroon represents Ron's frustrations, and his desires to rise above the other members of his family in some way to distinguish himself amongst them -- just like the Mirror of Erised showed (bet he wasn't wearing maroon in that image he saw!). -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 13:58:22 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:58:22 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: As for squibs and magic, I think that, just as > severelysigune wrote, they are the exact opposites of muggleborn wizards. Well, maybe not entirely. They do seem to be able to communicate with cats or familiars. whizbang From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 15:23:19 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:23:19 -0000 Subject: James and Lilly, were how old, exactly? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88584 I've read on other sites that James and Lilly were married right out of Hogwarts, within a year or so, Harry's born. That would make them either seventeen or eighteen?, Is this right? Where's the source for this? I didn't think there was any clue about their ages, or anything else at this point, regarding those two. "liz vega" From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 16:49:40 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:49:40 -0000 Subject: Maroon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "neisra2003" wrote: > Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so > frequently associated with Ron? > > When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is > almost always maroon. > Does this color symbolize anything? > > neisra Sadly, mental illness. Whizbang121 From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 15:50:14 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (Meghan Chalmers-McDonald) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:50:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Purpose & 7th/3rd Son In-Reply-To: <000201c3d98e$3f2e7ae0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: <20040113155014.91836.qmail@web11503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88586 Hello. My first time posting, tiny intro and then onto to good stuff. I'm Frost, and I'm an artist, though I don't do fan art very often, and the only Harry potter pictures I've drawn are to remind me what I saw the charicters as looking like before I saw the movies. Ok, enough about me. "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: so what's left for him to do, as far as Harry's concerned? >From Helen (LizardLaugh): I actually think that Dumbledore's role is the clearest of pretty much anyone's, at least, from a literary perspective. <> He's the wise man. The benevolent grandfather. The Merlin to Harry's young Arthur. The Gandalf to Harry's Frodo, carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. >>>>>>>>> But I think it's also very likely that Dumbledore will be dead by the end of the books. Not because his purpose has been filled, but because he would need to die for Harry to grow further as a person, to not always be in DD's shadow, and possibly give him the furthest motivation to kill ol' Snake Eyes. I think it is possible that DD won't be killed, but I think it is a very likely thing. Esp. when you're compairing him to Merlin and Gandolf. (Ok, so Merlin didn't DIE, persay, but the tower of silence was pretty much Aurthurs loss of him. And Gandolf came back, but it was a long time before Frodo knew he was alive.) >>>>>7th/3rd son stuff>>> PS/SS: knocked out during the wizards chess, misses Harry fighting Quirrel - his brave moment of sacrifice - CoS: wall falls between he and Harry, he is left behind with Lockhart, misses Harry fighting Tom Riddle - his brave moment is his wand backfiring on Lockhart - PoA: gets knocked out when Pettigrew escapes, Hermione and Harry go on to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak - his brave moment is chaining himself to Pettigrew and trying to get him when he transforms - GoF: gone in spirit while harry fights the dragon in the first task, is the person harry has to save in the second, watching the match while harry finishes the 3rd task and goes to confront Voldemort again - OoP: addled by the brains in the MoM and misses the battle between the DE's and the Order, as well as actually seeing Voldy appear in the MoM >>> Interesting, but the theory ignores other parts, such as in PoA, Ron's "brave moment" wasn't chaining himself to Peter, but protecting scabbers and his friends, while trying to stand up on a broken leg. He was there at the pivital moment for Harry, when HRH though that they were confronting the one who killed Harry's parents. The rest of it didn't take a lot of courage, but cunning, skill, and a good pair of legs. (which Ron didn't have. THe legs I mean.) As for OoP, He was in the fight with the DE, thats how his brains got addled in the first place. So he wasn't exactly coherent when the adults showed up. So what if he wasn't with Harry with LV and DD. Neither was anyone else, because Harry ran off after the battle. What matters is that he came with Harry to rescue Sirus, stood up to the Death eaters with them, tried to fight them with Harry, and thusly the scrambled brains. Ok. Enough outa' me. Frost Indri --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 17:18:47 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:18:47 -0000 Subject: Knight2King--Hermione is McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > I just want to register my protest of the use of time travel as a > major plot device. JKR used it once in POA to good effect, but to > make it part of the solution at the end of the series is a different > matter. > > Julie: I read the essay and thought it was fascinating. However, I agree with Robert in that I do not think that Ron is DD or Hermione is MM. I think that drawing similarities between Ron and DD may be accurate in predicting that Ron will lead the "Hogwarts' Army" in the fight against LV (as has been posted previously). I also will be reading carefully to see how the chess game as predictor plays out (because I think this is plausible). However, making these two main student characters the same people as two main teacher characters violates one of the main rules of using the time turner...allowing your future self to be seen by your past/present self, even if the self is diguised. From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 17:24:55 2004 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:55 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maroon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88588 > >Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so >frequently associated with Ron? > >When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is >almost always maroon. > >Does this color symbolize anything? > >neisra > I always thought that if it symbolized anything, it symbolized Molly Weasley's being out of touch with what her youngest son really thinks and feels - he apparently doesn't like maroon from his muttered remarks. Moreover, IMHO, maroon goes really badly with red hair. My guess as to why she keeps doing it is not to annoy him, but simply because for her own sanity she has a "color" coded to each child so she knows whose is which when doing laundry, making things, sorting out purchases. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Tue Jan 13 17:29:04 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:29:04 -0000 Subject: James and Lilly, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88589 "lizvega2" wrote: > I've read on other sites that James and Lilly were married right > out of Hogwarts, within a year or so, Harry's born. That would make > them either seventeen or eighteen?, Is this right? Where's the > source for this? I didn't think there was any clue about their ages, or anything else at this point, regarding those two. In a chat, JKR was asked how old Professor Dumbledore and Professor Snape were and she answered: "Dumbledore's about 150 years old... wizards have a longer life expectancy than us Muggles, Snape's 35 or 6." Link: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2001/0301- comicrelief-staff.htm So, since we know Snape and James, Lily, et all were school rivals, we assume they were in the same year (if not damn close). Harry was about 13 or 14 in the books (in JKR's mind) at this time. Do the math and that makes Lily and James about 21 or 22 ish when Harry was born. Arya (Who is annoyed when she sees the pic of J/L/H in the photo album from the films because they made James and Lily look much, much older than they should) From erinellii at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 17:30:08 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:30:08 -0000 Subject: James and Lily, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88590 liz vega wrote: > I've read on other sites that James and Lily were married right > out of Hogwarts, within a year or so, Harry's born. That would make > them either seventeen or eighteen?, Is this right? Where's the > source for this? I didn't think there was any clue about their ages, or anything else at this point, regarding those two. Erin: The source is JKR telling us in an interview that Snape was 35 or 36 at the end of GoF. Since he was in the same year as Harry's parents, that gives us their ages. Erin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 13 17:48:28 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:48:28 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: <000101c3d9ee$9762bc20$4e60bf44@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Iggy McSnurd" wrote: > > Iggy de-cloaking for a second: > > The sphinx is depicted as having the head of a woman and the body of a > lion (large cat.) > > He has met an example earlier... a few in fact. Mrs. Figg (who is very > close to her cats), and Hermione, who is very close to her ginger cat, > Crookshanks. (Ginger, btw, does happen to be a color only slightly > different than that of a lioness. Also Sphinxes are incredibly > intelligent... just like Hermione is.) > > While it does not end in an attack, the encounter definitely has the > overtone of quietly veiled lethal power. > He has already. While Nagani has an Indian name (and is probably from > there), you also need to remember that cobras also exist in Egypt as > well. > > The Red Spitting Cobra (Naja pallida)ranges in Southern Egypt (which, > IIRC, is near where the Pyramids are located...) > > Egyptian Cobras (Naja haje), also known as the Aspis, has a maximum > length of about 3 meters (about the size of Nagani... who can be > expected to be larger than normal, as wizards familiars commonly > are...), and range all over Egypt in almost any environment other than > purely desert. (They have even been spotted swimming in the > Mediterranean.) > > Those are the two main cobra species found in Egypt. Harry has been in > danger from an Egyptian creature connection. On the other hand, he has > not encountered something from India in a passive situation. (Well, > unless you count the Patil sisters... *grin*) Well, I'd hardly call a woman-headed lion a species of cat. Be a bit like claiming the Hungarian Horntail is a form of Salamander, too much of a stretch for comfort. The critical aspect of a Sphinx is surely the human bit; the intelligent fraction. That's what makes it dangerous. (And Egyptian lore has soooo many beings that seem to be composites of human and animal origin. Nice! Could be fun. "What larks, Pip! What larks!") But the point remains - it did not attack and that is the key to my obtuse hypothesis. The python in the zoo could also have attacked, but it didn't. Trolls - in my original post I pointed to Crabbe and Goyle for Troll characteristics - they seem less intellectual than even Dudders. The snake thing; any evidence that Nagini is a cobra? I can't seem to find any. There was a thread on this a while back and the only possible clue was her name, though 'naga' is just the Sanskrit for 'serpent' of any type. As you say, 'Naja' is the cobra genus, which doesn't quite fit Nagini. Naga *can* also refer to a mythical Indian beast that is half snake, half human, but I don't think Nagini has shown any human traits. She's a bit big, *at least* 12 ft according to Frank Bryce, and her bite seems to cause more physical damage than most of the venomous snakes I know of (except perhaps the Bushmaster which can strike hard enough to break ribs, and that's S.American anyway. I'm ignoring the Fer-de-Lance, the Bushmaster is bigger). Did Nagini attack Harry in the graveyard? Not to my knowledge. She just hung around in the background, sulking. The Basilisk is derived from a snake egg hatched beneath a toad, so the snake aspect of my guess is covered already and if(!) I'm right, JKR rarely duplicates plot devices anyway. Sorry, *potential danger* doesn't count. An actual attack is required to test the hypothesis. So I'll have to sit, twiddling my thumbs until the next volume (or the one after that) adds evidence or shoots it down in flames. Could be a long wait. Kneasy From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 13 17:52:38 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:52:38 -0000 Subject: Underage magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88592 In Chapter Four (The Keeper of the Keys) in PS, Petunia refers to her sister as "coming home every holiday with her pockets full of frog- spawn, turning teacups into rats". Is this just Petunia being spiteful, or did Lily really practice underage magic? And why on earth should anyone walk around with their pockets full of frog-spawn? Or is this just Petunia again, just saying whatever comes into her head to get years of frustration off her chest. Sylvia (the teacups into rats mention seems to ring a bell, but I can't place it. Or am I getting confusedwith the films?) From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 19:34:03 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:34:03 -0000 Subject: time turner question - PoA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88593 Okay, I know that this must have been discussed when PoA came out, but I am having trouble with the archive search... When Harry, Hermione, and Sirius collapse fending off the dementors around the lake, and Harry sees someone on the opposite shore fire off a Patronus and chase the dementors away, how could it be that he was seeing himself??? He and Hermione HAD TO survive that attack without a "Harry from the future," because if they didn't survive it, there would be no "Harry from the future" to save them. (I have this same issue with Terminator 2... how can you get the idea for a microchip from the microchip that you haven't invented yet? But I digress...) Since he had to go through that experience before he and Hermione went back in time... who created the Patronus the first time? If this has been discussed at length (which I'm sure it has), can someone point me to the thread? Thanks. :) Even with the Time-Turner problem, it's still my favorite of the books! Allie From t.forch at mail.dk Tue Jan 13 19:57:16 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:57:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] time turner question - PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040113205413.00bbd210@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88594 At 19:34 13-01-04 +0000, allies426 wrote: >When Harry, Hermione, and Sirius collapse fending off the >dementors around the lake, and Harry sees someone on the >opposite shore fire off a Patronus and chase the dementors >away, how could it be that he was seeing himself??? As long as you keep firmly in mind that things happen only once and that events that has happened stays happened (i.e. that you can't change the past) then there is no problem. There's an entry on this problem in the Pottverse FAQ at Hogwarts Library: (Yes, I did write that myself - it doesn't prevent me from thinking that it is actually a good analysis ;-) /Troels From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 13 19:55:10 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:55:10 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > However, the Vampire!Snape lobby asserts that JKR will in fact make considerable alterations to all the standard traits of the vampire for the sake of her story. < You've missed my point. There are *no* "standard traits of the vampire." There's Buffy vampires, yes, but then there's Bram Stoker vampires, and Anne Rice vampires, and Laurell K. Hamilton vampires (no celibates, they) plus cinematic and folkloric vampires galore, all different. There is no reason to regard any one of these as the standard version. There is no Bullfinch's Mythology for vampires to which we, or JKR, can refer. JKR does not seem to be writing under some Tolkienesque imperative to create a mythology purged of popular, foreign or literary influence. All of these can be found in her work. She has also let us know that Muggles have limited ability to perceive magical creatures and are being deliberately misled by wizards besides---a handy explanation for any discrepancies between her mythos and others. All of which makes me feel that she can tweak the vampire legend as she pleases. I respect the desire to avoid squicky discussions about reproduction, but I am afraid that this is one of the sources of the monster myth in general. Monstrous births were thought to be the result of monstrous ancestry, and unexpurgated folklore leaves us in no doubt as to how this came about. And "part" creatures are very important to JKR's theme, because sexual desire has ever been the undoing of rigid social stratification. However Slytherins may boast that they restrict themselves to the pureblood as partners, it is hardly canon that they actually do so. There are many indications that they do not. Riddle's ancestry is mixed, there are all those inconvenient relatives not listed on the Black family tree, and all those Slytherins who seem to resemble hags or trolls. You can dismiss the indications if you like, but when the canary is missing and the cat has feathers on its chin, the prudent bird-fancier will purchase a sturdier cage and keep a closer eye on the kitty in future. Pippin From tiggersong at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 20:02:04 2004 From: tiggersong at yahoo.com (tiggersong) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:02:04 -0000 Subject: Maroon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88596 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jesta Hijinx" wrote: > > > >Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so > >frequently associated with Ron? > > > >When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is > >almost always maroon. > > > >Does this color symbolize anything? > > > >neisra > > > I always thought that if it symbolized anything, it symbolized Molly > Weasley's being out of touch with what her youngest son really thinks and > feels - he apparently doesn't like maroon from his muttered remarks. > > Moreover, IMHO, maroon goes really badly with red hair. > > My guess as to why she keeps doing it is not to annoy him, but simply > because for her own sanity she has a "color" coded to each child so she > knows whose is which when doing laundry, making things, sorting out > purchases. > > Felinia This is mild fic-contamination, but as someone who's struggling with money, it seemed realistic when I read it: When Ickle Ronniekins was a small baby, Arthur and Molly got a lot of maroon yarn at some incredible discount. Molly then used it to make all of Ron's baby things and ... the color stuck. (This is not to say that Molly is still *using* that old yarn, just that now [as Felinia said above] Ron's "stuck" in maroon as far as Molly thinks of it.) I was stuck in Very Used clothes for similar reasons when I was growing up. When I got my first paycheck, I went out and bought New Clothes. Oddly enough, I'm wearing maroon right now. In fact, I like maroon on me and I'd happily go meet Ron in Knockturn Alley now to trade one of the sweaters I've knitted (in a non-maroon color) for an Actual Weasley Sweater. ::grin:: Stasia From evil_sushi2003 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 18:18:32 2004 From: evil_sushi2003 at hotmail.com (evil_sushi2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:18:32 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: why do the Vampire!Snape adherents take such an insistent approach to it being necessary to the plot and the story? There can be a vampire or not - June: ES Which is what I totally agree with. Think about it 1) abusive home 2) not a lot of friends (NOTE, the only person to stand up for him so far has been Lily, and that was most probably pity) 3) apparently not popular (girls in OoTP were swamping after James and co.) 4) Not good at quidditch or with girls (broomstick and girl laughing at him) and I vaguely remember a comment from Hagrid or DD about Snape being jealous of James' popularity, good looks and quidditch skills. June ES I have to say that I agree with (soz, cant remeber who) the idea that Charlie will bring one in tow, from Romania. June: ES Have to totally agree with this. Vampirism would weaken Snapes character: he would have an excuse for being IMHO mean. (Thinks of all the other words she could use to describe him). June: Here's an explanation: He's tall, dark, pale, prefers the indoor life, doesn't particularly go for the great outdoors, non- sporting. He's graceful and rather imposing in manner.> Es Graceful and imposing. Yes. He was obviously bullied, and probably wanted to be respected. (Which would explain why he is still affected by talks of James and James' hero-ism). But, being a proud Slytherin pureblood, he is far too superior and not at all self confident enough to go and be nice to Gryffindor!James&CO (refuses to believe any of this nonsense about slytherin!james). So he tries to get their attention. Unfortunately he does it wrong, and for some massive reason, is now hated by the 'cool kids'. (Which would also be why he is so strict in lessons, as he doesn't know how to gain respect, he forces it.) So now he is mean and imposing, because he has to protect himself, because if people think he is weak, then they can hurt him. So he cultivates the front that he is not to be messed with. (There are alternative theories on this, but this basically sums most which I find plausible). So; the spidery twitching adolescent in "Snape's Worst Memory" adopts a "scary" persona to discourage anyone from getting too close. June <> ES I agree that Snape is a quidditch fan, but I think that he likes to ortray that he isnt, because he wants to show that he is above the common, an especially above the kids. Also, I would assume he's not that good, so wants to hide his failings, and jealousy. June ES Seriously, that had me in stitches. June With Snape, all he has is pride. Vampire...erm... no. How disgusting would that be, especially how he treats Remus. Also, wouldn't the ministry keep tabs on Vampires, especially if they had been teaching for fourteen years??? So when Fudge says (sorry paraphrasing) A werewolf, a death eater. Bk 4, at the end. Wouldn't he have mentioned vampire?? El. S From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 18:41:40 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:41:40 -0000 Subject: Who is Najini? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" wrote: > [Vmonte asks] > > > Just wondering if Najini,Voldemort's snake,is male or female? > > (It sounds female but I'm not certain.) > > Also wondered if this creature was someone's animagus and if so > whose? > > > [Anne] > <> > I'm not sure if it's male or female, although I beleive I remember > that in myths from India, the 'Nagini' are the female half of the > Naga species--a mystic race that has the upper part of a body and the > lower part of a snake. Going by that description, the guess would be > female... > <> So why couldn't Najini be an acutal Naga? Rowling has adapted the myths to fit her own vision before (i.e. The Basalisk, also known as a cockatrice, which traditionally has the head of a rooster, sometimes a lizard's body, sometimes wings, and, when in snake form, is supposed to trave by roling ints body in loops. wierd monster). Maybe she has it the other way around- a snake that can transform to a human upper body, or, if sticking closer to the original tradition, the human head. It would make more sense for him to be using a magical snake for his potions (he regularly milks Najini (or has Wormtail do it). Of course, then again, most snake owners milk their venimouse snakes so that the bites don't actually harm them. But Najini seems to be a bit more intellegent, and have much more of a understanding with Voldemort. Frost From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 13 19:33:12 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:33:12 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is MaGonagall !!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88599 I think about time travel as a very complex ordeal, and if Ron and/or Hermione are or were or will be Dumbledore and McGonagall, then it might be possible for them not to know the future from the constant changes of instances in their timelines IF we can remember back to what was said about doubles (ie in PoA when Harry and Hermione traveled back) they were warned about their doubles and so forth. Well I think that time travel loops so when someone goes back in time, the time thread so to speak has to loop, and time can almost be ringlike (for instance, you can go back, forward, or where you are.) so if one travels back in time they create loops, so one has to constantly relive a certain thing all over again and then loop back to it. I know its confusing but bear with me. SO maybe whatever goes on, must go on according to the time they are in, and only their future selves know what happened. Yes I know that Harry and Hermione are so much the wiser the second time around, but whose to say that Dumbledore, or McGonagall for that matter, have a very complicated thread that runs different courses almost infinitely. Certainly McGonagall has used the time turner, she suggested it. Dumbledore has to know about it, he knows everything! So, to make a long story short; Dumbledore could have used the time turner to get rid of Riddle in the first place, or for that matter, found some way to not let him turn into ol Voldi, but he might have not done so or had done so and things got worse. AND time travel can be detrimental, so whose to say that some one or some people didn't already use it to fix or change something, and each time they were faced with higher and higher stakes, causing them to eventually want to find a less "time" consuming way to fix what was messed up. SO perhaps McGonagall just has to live new instances all over again, so a lot of what she did know has to be updated, but DD just knows anyway because he knows all just about. UGH!!! Anyhow, I won't totally agree on any theory, no matter how good, until the next two books come out :) From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 20:11:59 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:11:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maroon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3da11$811322c0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88600 [neisra asks] Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so frequently associated with Ron? When his clothing is described (sweaters, dress robes, etc), it is? almost always maroon. Does this color symbolize anything? [Anne Responds} Hmmmm...one guess is one that goes on the assumption by a lot of us that Rowling uses anything from names to colors for symbology... 'Maroon' is a shade of deep red---red is one of the colors of Gryffindor...and, if (warning: movie contamination), they got the color of the 'R' on Ron's sweater right in regards to the books (anyone remember if it was gold or yellow in the book?), then this might be one of Rowling's ways of reinforcing that Ron is indeed a Gryff to the bone...(Not to mention red hair and Maroon tend to go together rather well--who is to say Molly doesn't have a good grasp of color and fashion sense? Her knitting might be another matter though...^^;...) And for those who are adhering to the 'Ron as Dumbly" theory....doesn't Dumbly often wear maroon robes....? Or is that a mis-remembering on my part...? *Sigh* stuck at work with no HP books again....I really need a pocket version of the books to keep up with you guys....;) Anne Helen (LizardLaugh) chimes in: As a crazed Ron=DD fanatic, I've given the maroon question more thought than I feel is healthy to admit. Dumbledore's robes, when described, are actually purple. However, maroon is a color between red and purple, so there you go. When looking for what maroon might stand for in terms of symbolism (particularly medieval coat of arms type symbolism), it was usually grouped with brown or purple. So, really, useless. However, and this made even ME groan, and I love puns... but perhaps Ron hates maroon because he will eventually be 'marooned' in time? Now, if you want to talk movie contamination... Dumbledore's robes ARE maroon. From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 20:30:50 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:30:50 -0000 Subject: Maroon In-Reply-To: <000001c3da11$811322c0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88601 > Helen (LizardLaugh) chimes in: > > As a crazed Ron=DD fanatic, I've given the maroon question more thought > than I feel is healthy to admit. Dumbledore's robes, when described, are > actually purple. However, maroon is a color between red and purple, so > there you go. > > When looking for what maroon might stand for in terms of symbolism > (particularly medieval coat of arms type symbolism), it was usually > grouped with brown or purple. So, really, useless. > > However, and this made even ME groan, and I love puns... but perhaps Ron > hates maroon because he will eventually be 'marooned' in time? > > Now, if you want to talk movie contamination... Dumbledore's robes ARE > maroon. Julie: I, too, read that pun in the essay about the chess game. I still have problems, though, with the RW=DD thing, especially after reading the essay about the time turner Troels wrote. IMVHO, DD and MM interact far too much with what is happening for them to be using a time turner, which according to Hermione in PoA is a direct violation of its use. Speaking of PoA, this is what further boggles my mind, if MM=HG using a time turner, then she is telling herself to use a time turner while she is using a time turner. Time upon time upon time...did I just pass myself? I hope someone with a much better understanding of time travel will help me out with that one! From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jan 13 20:33:31 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:33:31 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" > wrote: > > > However, the Vampire!Snape lobby asserts that JKR will in fact > make considerable alterations to all the standard traits of the > vampire for the sake of her story. < > > You've missed my point. June: No - I haven't. I hear what you are saying and I think you are quite unwilling to listen to MY points. I have yet to read a convincing rebuttal of the points I have made in answer to this theory and the various "clues" you say prove it. All I have read is a constant re-iteration along the lines of "Vampire's can vary... there is more to Vampires than you know..." yada yada yada. You are entirely convinced that you are right. I for my part am entirely convinced that you are not. And I believe you have the right to your views, but I also have the right to oppose them. There are *no* "standard traits of the > vampire." There's Buffy vampires, yes, but then there's Bram > Stoker vampires, and Anne Rice vampires, and Laurell K. > Hamilton vampires (no celibates, they) plus cinematic and > folkloric vampires galore, all different. There is no reason to > regard any one of these as the standard version. There is no > Bullfinch's Mythology for vampires to which we, or JKR, can refer. June: There are generally recognised traits that not only I but a good many enthusiasts of fantasy literature, film and other sources tend to see as general commonality to the myth. As I said earlier - if you want this theory to be believed - well fine, you seem to have a number of adherents to it, but it entirely depends on making a number of assumptions (too many I think) that certainly jar this writer. Constant moving of the goalposts does not prove a theory. If this theory is so good, why does it require so much work to make it walk and talk? And I still have not seen a satisfactory response to my assertion that this theory requires considerable tweaking to make it work. JKR may well do that - but do not expect me to believe or even consider this theory as a good one, simply because a theory lobby seems to be unable to even concede that the sceptical reader may well consider them to be stretching a point to the level of burst elastic... If I am proven wrong by canon - then I'll get on this board and admit it when the time comes, until then - I remain entirely unconvinced, both by the likelihood of it happening and even the extrapolation of the "clues". They may indeed seem important clues to you - but not to me. I can explain every one of the clues that the various pro Vampire posters have made in a different way. That doesn't make you wrong - but it certainly doesn't make me believe you are right. Please try to understand that distinction. And please be as prepared to accept the fact as I am that you may well be proven wrong by canon in the future. I don't even perceive among the adherents of Vampire!Snape theory the slightest consideration that they may be mistaken. And there is good cause for you all to accept that it is indeed highly possible. > > JKR does not seem to be writing under some Tolkienesque > imperative to create a mythology purged of popular, foreign or > literary influence. All of these can be found in her work. She has > also let us know that Muggles have limited ability to perceive > magical creatures and are being deliberately misled by wizards > besides---a handy explanation for any discrepancies between > her mythos and others. > > All of which makes me feel that she can tweak the vampire > legend as she pleases. June: Indeed she can - but will she and will she do it in the way that you require? Permit me to doubt! > > I respect the desire to avoid squicky discussions about > reproduction, but I am afraid that this is one of the sources of the > monster myth in general. Monstrous births were thought to be > the result of monstrous ancestry, and unexpurgated folklore > leaves us in no doubt as to how this came about. > > And "part" creatures are very important to JKR's theme, because > sexual desire has ever been the undoing of rigid social > stratification. However Slytherins may boast that they restrict > themselves to the pureblood as partners, it is hardly canon that > they actually do so. There are many indications that they do not. > Riddle's ancestry is mixed, there are all those inconvenient > relatives not listed on the Black family tree, and all those > Slytherins who seem to resemble hags or trolls. June: I really think you are mistaken if you think any future book in the HP series is going to go into the sexual mores of the wizarding world in any great depth. And your dependence upon this as a plank on which to build this theory is to me further proof that it is a pretty desperate idea. Sorry this is not to offend any addict of Vampire!Snape theory personally, but I see a definite trend in the lobby to imply that only they are capable of the analysis required. You are picking up on items in the text and making them fit a theory. I am looking at the same items and having no difficulty whatsoever providing a non-Vampire explanation. Does that make me wrong? Of course not. And my explanations are based on a less exotic interpretation of events than yours. The explanation does not have to be exotic or introduce non-human species. Why is this essential? > > You can dismiss the indications if you like, but when the canary > is missing and the cat has feathers on its chin, the prudent > bird-fancier will purchase a sturdier cage and keep a closer eye > on the kitty in future. June: (?) Gee that's elliptical... Not really - because what is the point of buying a new cage when the bird is eaten? And if that is supposed to make me say "Sorry I must be wrong - out-metaphored" - hate to disappoint you but it failed. I am not dismissing anything - I am merely asserting my right to interpret it in a different way, and just as you patently think your view is correct, then I think mine is - and with just as much logic and reason - if not more. June Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I believe he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So go on - what's your excuse? From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 20:39:33 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:39:33 -0000 Subject: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88603 bboy_mn: > > Sadly, I can't disagree with you about Ron becoming Head Boy. I really > really REALLY want him to, but I think when the time comes, Harry will > be Head Boy. But, for what it's worth, I think Ron will be Quidditch > Captain, and he already has an award for Special Services to the > School, so he is making a name for himself. > > As a side note, I'm pretty sure Head Boy and Head Girl are a > school-wide honor, not a house honor; that is, 6 prefects per house, > but only one Head Boy and Head Girl for the entire school. So it's > possible that NO Gryffindor boy will become Head Boy. I find it hard > to believe that anyone other than Hermione could be Head Girl. > > You have to admit that no student has proven themselves to such a > degree and in so many ways as Harry. I think that puts Harry at the > head of the line for Head Boy. > > Just a few thoughts from a staunch Ron defender. > > bboy_mn Julie: Regarding Harry becoming Head Boy, remember why DD stated he did not make Harry prefect: basically, DD knew Harry had too much on him already. (I am at work and do not have my book in front of me, so I cannot quote.) With this same reasoning, knowing the "war" is coming, wouldn't DD think Harry would have even MORE on his shoulders in his 7th year, presuming that is when the showdown will take place? If he could not perform duties as Prefect over one House, how could he perform duties as Head Boy over the whole school? I think Ron continues to be the frontrunner for this position, which plays nicely into the theory that Ron will lead the Hogwarts army of students in the fight against LV. If he is Head Boy, he already is in the position of leading the students. From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 20:47:49 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:47:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maroon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3da16$81c20e20$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88604 Julie: I, too, read that pun in the essay about the chess game.? I still have problems, though, with the RW=DD thing, especially after reading the essay about the time turner Troels wrote.? IMVHO, DD and MM interact far too much with what is happening for them to be using a time turner, which according to Hermione in PoA is a direct violation of its use.? Speaking of PoA, this is what further boggles my mind, if MM=HG using a time turner, then she is telling herself to use a time turner while she is using a time turner.? Time upon time upon time...did I just pass myself?? I hope someone with a much better understanding of time travel will help me out with that one! Helen: Hehe, well, I am the guilty party with regards to the hideous pun in the 'Weasley is Our King' essay -- I wrote it. However, I do *not* think that McGonagall is Hermione. Ron=DD, I am pretty confident about. HG=McG, I am not yet convinced. I wouldn't say it is impossible or completely rule it out, but there just isn't the same level of evidence. I am still bothered by the idea of McG acting clueless at the beginning of PS/SS and I am still bothered by the fact that McG doesn't take as active a role (considering the Ron/Hermione dynamic... just doesn't work for me, though... I dunno). Now, I haven't read Troels essay on the Time Turner (where can I find it?). However, the problem with seeing your future self has nothing to do with some weird space/time thing, but just... like Hermione tells Harry -- if you didn't expect to see your future self, you would think Dark Magic was at work and do something stupid that would mess up everything. The issue isn't seeing yourself, but seeing yourself when you don't expect it. It doesn't matter that Ron sees Dumbledore all of the time -- Ron doesn't know Dumbledore is his future self. AND... despite all of Hermione's warnings, it was Harry seeing his future self that did, indeed, save the day. Nothing wrong with seeing yourself if 1) You know what is going on (like if Hermione ran into herself while using the Time Turner for classes) or 2) You don't recognize your future self (Harry seeing himself cast the Patronus, Ron seeing Dumbledore). From persephone_kore at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 20:54:56 2004 From: persephone_kore at yahoo.com (persephone_kore) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:54:56 -0000 Subject: Who is Najini? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88605 > > [Vmonte asks] > > > > > Just wondering if Najini,Voldemort's snake,is male or female? > > > (It sounds female but I'm not certain.) [PK] If you reread the beginning of GoF, you will find that Voldemort refers to Nagini as "she." (Is it spelled with a J in some of the translations? I know it's 'g' in the English editions.) I can't think of any compelling reason to doubt the pronoun. [Frost] > It would make more sense for him to be > using a magical snake for his potions (he regularly milks Najini (or > has Wormtail do it). Of course, then again, most snake owners milk > their venimouse snakes so that the bites don't actually harm them. > But Najini seems to be a bit more intellegent, and have much more of > a understanding with Voldemort. [PK] Well, the boa seemed quite intelligent to me as well. I think it would be interesting if Nagini were in fact a Naga -- probably more so than if she were an Animagus, though perhaps it would depend on what she was like as a human. Even if she doesn't have a human or semi-humanoid form, though, I'm nearly certain she's magical. Judging from Harry's descriptions, she's a good size for a large constrictor -- but venomous. PK From EnsTren at aol.com Tue Jan 13 21:03:56 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:03:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Underage magic Message-ID: <68.39df7776.2d35b73c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88606 In a message dated 1/13/2004 1:39:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk writes: In Chapter Four (The Keeper of the Keys) in PS, Petunia refers to her sister as "coming home every holiday with her pockets full of frog- spawn, turning teacups into rats". Is this just Petunia being spiteful, or did Lily really practice underage magic? And why on earth should anyone walk around with their pockets full of frog-spawn? Or is this just Petunia again, just saying whatever comes into her head to get years of frustration off her chest. Sylvia There was this discussion on list before, and while I can't quote the exact message I do recall the gist of it. The law preventing underage magic is called "The *Reasonably* Restriction on Underaged Magic" (emphasis mine) So the school or the ministry most likely sends home permission slips for the students, or asks the parents if they want magic performed infront of them. Petunia at that age wouldn't have a say in it. Or, more disturbingly, they have a way to measure the "magiphobia" or "Muggleness" of people. (They have a quill to write down all magically born children, after all.) In which case they might very well know, (or not know but be on file) that Harry is in abusive, or high risk enviroment. Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 21:07:20 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:07:20 -0000 Subject: Maroon/Ron=DD hypothesis In-Reply-To: <000001c3da16$81c20e20$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88607 Helen, I thought that essay about the chess game was brilliant! I bookmarked it to reference while reading books 6 and 7. (I did chuckle when I read your pun.) You did make a good argument for the Ron=DD connection. However, I'm still looking for a less complex explanation for DD knowing what he knows. For example, I read on one website (I wish I could remember where) speculation that DD is part Demiguise. This would give him the ability to become invisible without a cloak and to be able to see through an invisibility cloak. The piece about the time turner is referenced in Troell's post 88594. That post contains a link to the article. I will re-read your chess essay and look again at your position for Ron=DD. As I said, rest I find fascinating and think you are onto something. I would not put it past JKR to give us a blueprint in book 1 to the rest of the septology. Julie From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jan 13 21:15:47 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:15:47 -0000 Subject: Maroon In-Reply-To: <000001c3da11$811322c0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, neisra wrote: > > Can anyone guess what the deal is with the color maroon so frequently > associated with Ron? > Helen (LizardLaugh) chimes in: > snip > However, and this made even ME groan, and I love puns... but perhaps Ron > hates maroon because he will eventually be 'marooned' in time? AmanitaMuscaria now: A maroon is also a firework used here in the U.K. as a request for help - when the (volunteer) lifeboat service is called out, two maroons are discharged, at a preset time (1-2 minutes) apart. Will Ron become the 'knight in shining armour' and answer the summons to help? Or is he sending up maroons of distress Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 21:22:33 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:22:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] time turner question - PoA, dragging in Ron=DD by his freckled ears In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040113205413.00bbd210@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <000001c3da1b$5cd793f0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88609 As long as you keep firmly in mind that things happen only once and that events that has happened stays happened (i.e. that you can't change the past) then there is no problem. There's an entry on this problem in the Pottverse FAQ at Hogwarts Library: (Yes, I did write that myself - it doesn't prevent me from thinking that it is actually a good analysis ;-) /Troels Helen: Ok... Julie made reference to your essay, and I am glad I found it so quickly. I always had the same view you put forth on Time travel in the HP universe. It was pretty clear to me that nothing was changed in PoA, and that things always happen the same way. Now, I am a Ron=DD fan, and the fact that Ron couldn't change anything did indeed answer a lot of questions people had with regards to why he didn't save the Potters, let Sirius go to Azkaban, kill Tom Riddle as a baby (as Tom Riddle tried to do with Harry), etc. He simply couldn't, even if he had tried, that was the way it happened. The one thing, however, that didn't work for ME with this model of time travel was the fact that it seemed to negate a very important theme in the books -- free will and the matter of choice. Of course, the way you explain it -- what happens in the past is a product of choices already made/will be made -- it now makes sense to me. Kinda. Sorta. But I don't buy time travel as a real possibility outside of fantasy/science fiction anyway. AND... I am not so sure JKR will be completely consistent. I hope she will, but I can't shake the feeling that when time travel shows up again (and... I believe it will, even if Dumbledore isn't a future Ron) that she may make mistakes or revise the model she is using. I like the PoA model as you explain it -- I came to the same conclusion myself as obviously, nothing actually changes, though I didn't have the background in physics to really understand it and explain it as well as you do. However, JKR is not a physicist, and time travel is always messy. Your explanation is, however, the most consistent and logical I have seen. Now, when Ixchelmala and I were working on the Evil Chess Theory of Doom which incorporated the idea of Dumbledore being a future Ron (http://www.knight2king.net), we had to think really hard again about time travel. Like I said, I always liked the 'immutable time loop' model because that is what we saw in PoA. Not only that, it is neat, tidy and completely consistent. However... I couldn't shake the fact that it negated the theme of choice. In looking at events in GoF, it looked as though Ron/DD might have actually changed something there, and that also explained some inconsistencies, especially with respect to OotP (though the consistencies in OotP can be explained with one simple thing -- Harry never tells Ron about the Prophecy). But... now I don't know. I don't know if JKR will be consistent. I like how you have worked in free will into the idea of not being able to change the past (the past is set because of the choices you do make). It's logical. It works... I need to do some more thinking. From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jan 13 21:32:41 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:32:41 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88610 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > > spangb > > The name Dedalus comes from a Greek architect who built the > > Minoan > > labyrinth in which resided the famous Minotaur. It also means > > intricate in English. > snip > Geoff: snip > Dedalus/Daedalus was also the father of Icarus, > who made artificial wings and flew too near the sun. > snip AmanitaMuscaria: Just to clarify Geoff's post, Daedalus made the wings, his son used them and flew too near the sun and died. But my OED has the origin of Daedalus as being 'cunningly wrought', from the Latin. And, although Diggle isn't in, dighel is Old English for dark, secret, obscure. Should we be keeping a careful eye on DD? Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 21:36:47 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:36:47 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > Let me respond to some of the suggestions made against the idea that > the boys were in Slytherin: > Julie: In the October 16, 2000, interview of JKR by Scholastic Inc., JKR is asked the following question: Q.What position did James play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team? Was it seeker like Harry, or something different? A. James was Chaser (see link http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm While JKR did not say James was the Chaser FOR GRYFFINDOR, she did not correct or caution the writer of the question about making that assumption. Given that she simply clarified the position James played, I am assuming that James was in Gryffindor. Any thoughts on this and my interpreation of this? From patnkatng at cox.net Tue Jan 13 21:42:07 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:42:07 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88612 --- In message 88568 Kneasy wrote: > I'm grateful that you've mentioned the Sphinx. Splendid! Thank you! > I felt that PP, Ron and Bill, while possibly indicative, were not *direct* > Egyptian links to Harry. Can't think how I missed it. > > The Sphinx is a direct link, and true to my hypothesis, it does not > attack him. In fact it appears fairly passive and gives him the opportunity > to walk away unscathed if he wants to. Only if he gives a wrong answer > will it attack and it warns him of this. In fact, it gives him a broad smile > when he answers correctly. Nice Sphinxy! > > Now, to raise my hypothesis to the level of theory, we need Harry to > face mortal danger from a being with an Egyptian connection some- > where in the next two books. > > Of course, a Werewolf would do just as well, as would a few other > creatures he's already met and where he did not have to defend > himself against overt attack, but I favour the Egyptian motif myself. > More scope for the exotic. > > Kneasy Katrina de-lurks for a comment: I'm not certain that this actually qualifies as L.O.O.N.Y, but the "riddling" Sphinx described in GoF more closely resembles that of Greek origin than Egyptian. Bulfinch describes Oedipus' encounter with the Sphinx as follows: [T]he city of Thebes was afflicted with a monster which infested the highroad. It was called the Sphinx. It had the body of a lion and the upper part of a woman. It lay crouched on the top of a rock, and arrested all travellers who came that way, proposing to them a riddle, with the condition that those who could solve it should pass safe, but those who failed should be killed. Not one had yet succeeded in solving it, and all had been slain. Oedipus was not daunted by these alarming accounts, but boldly advanced to the trial. The Sphinx asked him, "What animal is that which in the morning goes on four feet, at noon on two, and in the evening upon three?" Oedipus replied, "Man, who in childhood creeps on hands and knees, in manhood walks erect, and in old age with the aid of a staff." The Sphinx was so mortified at the solving of her riddle that she cast herself down from the rock and perished. **end quote** Apollodorus describes the same sphinx thusly: [3.5.8] Laius was buried by Damasistratus, king of Plataea, and Creon, son of Menoeceus, succeeded to the kingdom. In his reign a heavy calamity befell Thebes. For Hera sent the Sphinx, whose mother was Echidna and her father Typhon; and she had the face of a woman, the breast and feet and tail of a lion, and the wings of a bird. And having learned a riddle from the Muses, she sat on Mount Phicium, and propounded it to the Thebans. And the riddle was this:--What is that which has one voice and yet becomes four-footed [p.1.349] and two-footed and three-footed? **end quote** Now GoF (1st American HB Edition): It was a sphinx. It had the body of an over-large lion: great clawed paws and a long yellowish tail ending in a brown tuft. Its head, however, was that of a woman. "So. . . so will you move, please?" said Harry, knowing what the answer was going to be. "No," she said, continuing to pace. "Not unless you can answer my riddle. Answer on your first guess -- I let you pass. Answer wrongly -- I attack. Remain silent -- I will let you walk away from me unscathed." (pp. 628-9) Although the riddle differs, and the Egyptian sphinx predates that of the Greeks, the allusion strikes me as most certainly Greek. Even without the wings. http://monsters.monstrous.com/oedipus_and_the_sphinx.htm and http://www.mythicalrealm.com/images2/sphinxingres.jpg have some great modern illustrations of the Sphinx and Oedipus. http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mymyth/pics14/0001200102.jpg has one more contemporary. Nevertheless, I suspect that your suspicions about Egypt are good ones. Tangentially, each of Harry's encounters with LV have been either underground or in a place otherwise associated with death. If this pattern is to continue, then perhaps they will meet in (under?) an Egyptian tomb. Katrina, who is supposed to be getting babies up from a nap, not researching Greek and Egyptian mythology. From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Tue Jan 13 21:45:40 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:45:40 -0000 Subject: Underage magic In-Reply-To: <68.39df7776.2d35b73c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88613 NEMI WROTE: The law preventing underage magic is called "The *Reasonably* Restriction on Underaged Magic" (emphasis mine) -------------- ARYA REPLIES: Actually, I was just musing on this last night and it's a restriction on **SORCERY**. The notice in CoS even explains that *spells* are not to be performed. It really makes me wonder about accidental/wandless magic being detectable or an offense. There was no owl when the protection or Harry zapped Vernon in Ch1 of OotP and the notice for casting the Patronus charm never mentions the wandless Lumos. -------------- So the school or the ministry most likely sends home permission slips for the students, or asks the parents if they want magic performed infront of them. Petunia at that age wouldn't have a say in it. Or, more disturbingly, they have a way to measure the "magiphobia" or "Muggleness" of people. (They have a quill to write down all magically born children, after all.) In which case they might very well know, (or not know but be on file) that Harry is in abusive, or high risk enviroment. -------------- ARYA REPLIES: I think if this were the case it would have been a *MUCH* bigger deal and shown up in a book. The CoS notice is very clear it's just the rule for no underage witches or wizards to do any spells. Period. Hermione never tells us she goes home in the summer and shows off to her parents how she can cast a cleaning charm to wash the dishes in the blink of an eye. Nor, does Ron or Ginny do magic at the Burrow as they please. In fact, it's obvious in OotP that the fact that Fred and George are of age and allowed to do magic was the impetus for them using magic all over around the house to do small things like send a trunk down the stairs and flying into Ginny and trying to set the table with magic but in a not so graceful manner. Also, the magical quill recording magical children is Hogwarts, not the Ministry's. The exact quote from JKR is: In Hogwarts there's a magical quill which detects the birth of a magical child. It's from the Scholastic Feburary 2000 chat. And knowing Harry was in an abusive household (I severely hope this in no way the case) is only MORE reason to give the Boy Who Lived adequate means to defend himself against poor muggles. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Jan 13 21:59:56 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:59:56 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4005050C.9862.21C46B3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88614 On 13 Jan 2004 at 20:39, drjuliehoward wrote: > Regarding Harry becoming Head Boy, remember why DD stated he did not > make Harry prefect: basically, DD knew Harry had too much on him > already. (I am at work and do not have my book in front of me, so I > cannot quote.) With this same reasoning, knowing the "war" is > coming, wouldn't DD think Harry would have even MORE on his > shoulders in his 7th year, presuming that is when the showdown will > take place? If he could not perform duties as Prefect over one > House, how could he perform duties as Head Boy over the whole > school? Because the duties may be quite different - Prefects at Hogwarts seem to be primarily concerned with maintaining order. The duties of the Head Boy and Head Girl may be subtly different - not just to maintain order but to actively lead and inspire the other students. The fact that the War is Coming, may make that type of role much more important - and that type of role could be taken on by Harry as *part* of his responsibilities to the 'War Effort' - rather than in addition to them. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ron as Head Boy - but I don't think Harry can be written off just by the pressure of work argument. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 13 22:06:13 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:06:13 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040114110328.025bd3c0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88615 At 21:36 13/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Julie: > >While JKR did not say James was the Chaser FOR GRYFFINDOR, she did >not correct or caution the writer of the question about making that >assumption. Given that she simply clarified the position James >played, I am assuming that James was in Gryffindor. > >Any thoughts on this and my interpreation of this? Tanya here Further responding to the idea against them being in Slytherin. It says in book 5 that Sirius said he was a disappointment to his family. Now, if he had been in Slytherin, then things might of been different as the Blacks favoured the pureblood notion, etc, etc. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 13 22:15:53 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:15:53 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88616 drjuliehoward mentions the JKR interview I mentioned in my first post on this topic. I discussed it there and don't have anything to add. But here are a bunch of other possible objections to the theory that can be easily refuted. (1) How could Harry be the Heir of Gryffindor is James was in Slytherin? Simple: one's ancestry does not determine which House you go in ? one's choices do. So a father can be in one House and the child in another, and both still be descended from the same person. (Also remember that the Sorting Hat told Harry that he would do very well in Slytherin (PS/SS 7). Probably James had the same dispositions at age 11. Maybe the Hat said the same to James and he said "Fine.") (2) We learn throughout OOTP that Sirius' mother considered him a "blood traitor." Being sorted into Gryffindor would certainly upset the Black family (which I assume has always been in Slytherin, considering all the snake emblems around their house at Grimmauld) and might be enough to label him a "blood traitor." He might be an automatic Slytherin (like Malfoy just touching the Hat in PS/SS 7) ? would Sirius even have time to argue and choose Gryffindor like Harry did? The basic question is when did he go bad (or go "good")? At age 11 or before? Wouldn't it be more likely that he would rebel against his family as a teenager? At age 11 when he was sorted, he may well have still been under his family's influence. Harry would be ad exception ? he would gladly have rebelled against the Dursleys at 11, but he was mistreated all his life. (3) Remus was a werewolf and Slytherin only takes in "purebloods." Well, Remus was bitten as a child and that does not affect his "pure blood" ancestry ? if he had one. Also remember that not all Slytherins are "pure bloods" ? LV being the chief example. (LV was in Slytherin, wasn't he?) A werewolf in Slytherin doesn't seem odd to me. (4) James and the boys were not bad and so couldn't be in Slytherin. Well, no one is saying James and the others were "bad" (i.e., followers of LV), but only that their cunning and ambition, not bravery, were defining their character at age 11 when they were sorted. So too James could hate the dark arts and still be in Slytherin ? the dark arts are not what define a Slytherin. (5) Throughout the books there are passages stating that Harry sees a boy whom he doesn't know by name but knows is in Hufflepuff or that he sees a group of Slytherins. How could he know that if he cannot tell their House by appearance (and so could see which House James was in in the Pensieve scene)? Simple: he has been having breakfast, lunch, and dinner with these people for years. He can see which House table they have been sitting at. So even if he doesn't know their names or anything else, he knows which House they are in. Also not that in these passages JKR does not say that Harry sees someone in a Hufflepuff robe or anything like that ? just that he knows which House they are in. (6) How in POA 8 could Sirius know where the Gryffindor Common Room was if he hadn't been in Gryfinndor in school? Simple: he had the Marauder's Map while in school. He probably knew where all the Common Rooms were. (That James and the boys would even create a map for marauding might seem like more evidence of Slytherin activity ? but Fred and George, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione all happily use it.) Bobby From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 13 22:22:20 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:22:20 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88617 While I'm online, let me continue my rant against the idea that Dumbledore is Ron and Hermione is McGonagall. If JKR was going to use time-turning to solve the problem of LV, she could have just as easily had someone kill Tom Riddle off as a baby and avoid the whole problem. Why have Dumbledore/Ron bumbling along? Why bother writing these stories if she had a cure-all in mind all along? I'll feel cheated if that is how this whole thing ends. From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 21:19:20 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:19:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight 2 King--Hermione is McGonagall! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88618 I read through the Ron = Dumbledore theory in 'Knight 2 King', and while I'm undecided as to whether I think it's true, I definitely have to say that it's an extremely creative, well-documented and thought-out theory, and worthy of Rowling if it does turn out to be right or have elements in it that are correct. I started out as being very skeptical, but by the time I read to the end of the theory, I was extremely impressed with the depth and canon citations that the creators used to back it up. However, I'm a bit more reticent about the Hermione = McGonagall theory. First of all, using the time-travel twist with one character is pretty cool, I'd say. But using it with two out of the three members of the Trio? Then it seems a bit overdone, in my opinion. But more than this, the reason that I disagree with the Hermione = McGonagall theory is because while Dumbledore seems to be pretty close to omniscient (which would make sense, if he's already experienced these events before), I never get that feeling with McGonagall. She's very clever, of course, but she gets very worried about things that Dumbledore doesn't. And one of the first comments that we hear McGonagall say in the HP series is a comment that baby Harry should be raised in the wizard world, he shouldn't be raised by these muggles. Hermione, being muggle-born, wouldn't likely have any prejudice against muggles. And while she might not like the Dursleys because of what she hears about them from Harry, I think that she'd be aware that putting Harry in care of a wizard family would cause him to turn out radically different from how he did originally (if she were McGonagall, that is). And she wouldn't question Dumbledore wanting to place Harry where he belongs. Or even if she did question it, she'd do it using different words/argument than we see McGonagall use in the first book. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Find out everything you need to know about Las Vegas here for that getaway. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/vivalasvegas.armx From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 21:32:04 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (Meghan Chalmers-McDonald) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:32:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 4138 In-Reply-To: <1074020945.17226.69051.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040113213204.32023.qmail@web11508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88619 Kneazy: > >> The Basilisk is derived from a snake egg hatched beneath a toad, so the > snake aspect of my guess is covered already and if(!) I'm right, JKR rarely > duplicates plot devices anyway. Actually, according to FB it's a chicken egg on a dung heap, and according to the traditional myths its a rooster egg hatched by a toad on a dung heap underneath the dog star. Which makes you wonder if maybe Sirus could had some luck with hatching a basilisk... jk. However, the basilisk is called the King of Snakes, so, as Kneazy said, if the monster trend theory is correct, the snake has been covered. But I still want to see Najini be a naga. ^_^''' Frost --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 22:35:21 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:35:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maroon/Ron=DD hypothesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3da25$87c20370$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88620 Helen, I thought that essay about the chess game was brilliant! I bookmarked it to reference while reading books 6 and 7. (I did chuckle when I read your pun.) You did make a good argument for the Ron=DD connection. However, I'm still looking for a less complex explanation for DD knowing what he knows. For example, I read on one website (I wish I could remember where) speculation that DD is part Demiguise. This would give him the ability to become invisible without a cloak and to be able to see through an invisibility cloak. The piece about the time turner is referenced in Troell's post 88594. That post contains a link to the article. I will re-read your chess essay and look again at your position for Ron=DD. As I said, rest I find fascinating and think you are onto something. I would not put it past JKR to give us a blueprint in book 1 to the rest of the septology. Julie >From Helen: There are other ways Dumbledore can know things even if he's not Ron, but not quite to the extent that he appears to... for instance, the wizarding portraits, being a bumblebee Animagus, the chocolate frog cards, being a Legilimens, and as you mention, possibly being part Demiguise (something I hadn't heard or thought of until you mentioned it)... of course, all of these open up even more questions as to why he did/did not do certain things. For instance, if he is a Legilimens, how could he not know that Peter was the traitor during the first war? He knew Kreacher was lying, why not Peter? Why didn't he do something? Why did he let the Potters die? If he is Ron, he knows he has to do that to defeat Voldie in the end, but if he's not.... well, that doesn't make sense. He doesn't know the outcome. He's got the Prophecy, but he still doesn't have enough to allow Peter to stick around so close to the Potters. Then, there is the matter of Sirius, and if the MAGIC DISHWASHER brigade is to be believed, Dumbledore orchestrated the whole thing. So, ok... Dumbledore CAN see through invisibility cloaks... He sure does give Harry the exact message he needs, on the fly even, in CoS in Hagrid's hut. He still has to figure out the exact room to stick the mirror in so Harry can find it in PS/SS. Nothing is ever a surprise with Dumbledore. The one thing that *does* seem like a surprise - the first Prophecy - Harry has yet to tell Ron about. In fact, in OotP he talks about not burdening Ron and Hermione with this knowledge... how absolutely ironic, considering that Dumbledore didn't want to burden Harry with that same knowledge.... and the disaster it led to. I think in reading books 6 and 7, this will be the real test of Ron=DD. Ron can't know about the Prophecy before he goes back in time. I just read Troell's essay on Time Travel... and I found it absolutely brilliant. It solves the problem I had with the immutable time loop shown in PoA -- that is, the question of free will, something that is a huge theme in the books. There is one other possibility that does involve time travel, but NOT Dumbledore as Ron... and that is, perhaps Dumbledore himself is traveling back in time to advise himself. Perhaps Aberforth Dumbledore is, indeed, Albus Dumbledore, only a future Albus Dumbledore who has gone back to tell the current Albus Dumbledore what to do. From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 13 22:50:33 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:50:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-Turning as a Cure-All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c3da27$a766ae90$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 88621 >From Robert: ?While I'm online, let me continue my rant against the idea that Dumbledore is Ron and Hermione is McGonagall. If JKR was going to use time-turning to solve the problem of LV, she could have just as easily had someone kill Tom Riddle off as a baby and avoid the whole problem.? Why have Dumbledore/Ron bumbling along?? Why bother writing these stories if she had a cure-all in mind all along?? I'll feel cheated if that is how this whole thing ends. >From Helen (LizardLaugh): I'll leave Hermione/McGonagall out of this, as I am not convinced of that one yet myself, however... For all we know, Dumbledore/Ron tried to do just that. And failed. Julie pointed me to Troell's most excellent essay on Time Travel -- http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/potterverse_faq.html#time_trav el I think if you read that, you might understand why he can't. Also... keep in mind what Hermione tells Harry about changing time "Nobody can change time, nobody". So really, the idea of the cure all as you present it is no different whether Dumbledore is Ron or not -- Time travel exists in the wizarding world, plain and simple, as we can see in PoA. So if Harry and Hermione can save Buckbeak, why can't someone go back in time and kill Voldie as a baby? This is a problem, Ron=DD theory aside. Of course, it is really not a problem of all if you consider time travel from the POV Troell presents it. From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 13 23:10:59 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:10:59 -0600 Subject: Traditional Vampirism.... Message-ID: <001101c3da2a$8211ebc0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88622 Okay...this is by no means a complete list...I may add more, once I cna find a few reliable sources, but it might help a little with some of the 'distinctions' between folkloric vamps and what has come out since then in order to entertain the masses. A lot of this is memory from when I was taking mythology and folklore in school, and what little I can dredge up from the remaining books I have (since an ex BF stole all my vamp material....)...keep in mind that I'm NOT referring to 'modern' vamps--of which I include Bram Stoker's version, as well as Camilla, Nosferatu and I Am Legend. I'm dealing here about as exclusively as I can with the original type as most people would know them without entertainment contamination. These sources are varied, so don't expect me to be 100% until I get to a library and can really research it...for now, this is all memory.... Why am I doing this? Because some of the arguement seems to be stemming into "modern" interpertations (which vary greatly) vs. the original, which provided bits and pieces to each of the modern versions, but has a definate set of rules of its own...and although Rowling may yet out her own spin on the myth, I suspect she will work from the original creature, and not from what writers and movie scripters have done with the myth since then--after all, what's the point in copying someone else's idea? Why not twist it your own way...? The original Vampire was a folkloric explanation for sudden death, wasting diseases, unexplained 'epidemics' of similar sickenesses and/or deaths throughout a village, and the like. It was also, scholars argue, a way for superstitous villagers to explain the condition of certain corpses they dug back up when they 'discovered' that said corpses still looked life-like, seemed to have grown thier hair and nails somewhat, had blood leaking from the lips, and often appeared to have not rotted away as they should have according to what little people knew about decompostion in those times (keep in mind that factors such as the coffin materials, how airtight the coffin was, the soil and what was in it, including any scavaging bugs or worms, were all factors that most men had no clue about at the time the vampire legend took root). Most often, the sick that took a long time to waste away were the ones accused of vampirism after they had died (Assumption being that said vampire had been a victim of another vampire during the sickness), and if the sickness continued after the 'vampiric victim's' death, the villagers would dig up that body (and all the other supposed victims of the vamp), and do the usual desecration of the body, sowing it with salt, and then laying the body upside down back in the coffin so that if the vmap tried to rise agian, it would become confused and be unable to find its way back to the surface, thus ending its predations. It was thought to be no cure for a victim except Gods mercy, as far as I remember...because all the accounts I read were about villagers praying for the victim, but little else. If they made it, God (or the equivilant there-of) must have spared them. Otherwise, the victim simply wasted away and eventually died...and was then the next suspected 'blood sucker'. The original areas Vampires were found in were around the Slavic countries and up into Russia....Although Romania might be part of this area, I think the association there was more incouraged by Bram Stoker in order to make his "Vlad the Impaler as a Vampire" idea fit. Traits of the Traditonal Vampire (Traditional, not literary, with RL explainations thrown in for good measure): 1) Very very very dead. Most often had been the victim of a wasting disease of some sort and has had last rites, has been prepared for burial and then buried. 2) When found--in the grave in which they had been buried in--they 'look healthy', if a bit pale and waxy (A result of recently pooled blood), their hair and nails appeared to have grown (The skin recedes from both and make them appear to have done this), and they often have blood droplets around the corners of the mouth and sometimes nose (Natural decompostion taking effect--blood often leaks from various orifices after the rigor mortis stage). Sometimes, if the villagers poke holes in the body of the vampire, it emits a horrid sound, accompanied by a putrid smell, and the 'loss' of its healthy build (bodies bloat while decomposing, and if you puncture one, that wonderful gas will escape, making a nasty noise, smelling horribly, and helping the body to return to its non-bloated state). Sometimes, the eyes seemed to open, or the vampire will sit up when disturbed (if the corpse is pretty fresh--such as the next day, anyone who has worked in a hospital or morgue will know that that's muscle reflex--I don't have the knowledge to use the proper terms, but you get the idea). 3) Because of the blood around the lips, they are thought to drink blood, as well as spread disease throughout the village they are haunting...and, most often, they victimize thier own families (Probably because out of everyone in the village, the family members are the ones most likely to be infected by whatever said 'vampire' had while he or she was still alive due to proximity to the victim while they were sick.) 4) Most Vampires are also thought to have been cursed because of acts done in life--murder, rape, robbery, and the like. Living an 'unclean' or 'unholy' life can also condemn you (IE doing things against the social norm and not participating in the local religion). 5) They victimize thier targets at night--when no one is around to see them crawl out of thier graves (except maybe the village drunk who had one too many that night...) 6) They are repelled by gloves of garlic hung on door frames, a line of salt spread across the threshold and the windowsills, cocks crowing at dawn, and, in some places (those that had recently converted to Christianity), religous symbols such as the cross, the rosary, and holy water can do the trick. None of these things can kill a vampire, however, just discourgae thier interest in getting into your home... 7) They cannot cross running water (such as a river or the ocean--streams may be a different matter however...) 8)They can be killed if they cannot return to thier original gravesite by dawnbreak, or if the villagers dig the vamp back up, do religious rites over them, and desecrate the body. 9) Many villages buried a suspected vampire upside down in its grave to confuse it and keep it from digging out. 10) Vampires are very rarely recorded as having any sort of intelligent conversation with either thier victims or thier killers....they more seem to revert to an animalistic nature....vicious, hungry, and pretty much gone as far as mental capacity is concerned. Anne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belijako at online.no Tue Jan 13 23:16:00 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:16:00 -0000 Subject: Salazar's dagger? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88623 We are already well acquainted with Godric'?s silver sword set with egg-sized rubies in the handle; the Gryffindor weapon. I wonder whether we've already met Salazar's weapon? Anyone else noticed the silver dagger at the end of GoF? Quote: "He [Wormtail] pulled a long, thin, shining silver dagger from inside his robes... 'Flesh - of the servant - w-willingly given - you will - revive - your master.'" (GoF p. 556 UK Ed). Wormtail then proceeds to cut off his own hand. No mention of any precious stones or the like on the handle of the dagger, but apart from that I find it interesting that it is made of silver; not just steel, signifying it is expensively wrought... Any thoughts as to whether this could be our first glimpse of the Slytherin weapon? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From amani at charter.net Tue Jan 13 23:19:27 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:19:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? References: Message-ID: <008701c3da2b$b12d70e0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88624 Bobbly: Let me respond to some of the suggestions made against the idea that the boys were in Slytherin: Taryn: I just don't see why MWPP being mean in OotP=Slytherin. The idea that a Gryffindor couldn't be that nasty seems rather one-dimensional. (All Gryffindors are wonderful and nice! If you're mean, that MUST mean you're in Slytherin!) But maybe that's just me. *shrugs* ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jan 14 00:12:59 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:12:59 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040114110328.025bd3c0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88625 > >Julie: > > > >While JKR did not say James was the Chaser FOR GRYFFINDOR, she did > >not correct or caution the writer of the question about making that > >assumption. Given that she simply clarified the position James > >played, I am assuming that James was in Gryffindor. > > > >Any thoughts on this and my interpreation of this? Marianne here I think your interpretation makes perfect sense. Having said that, I'll add that I also think that JKR ignored a perfect opportunity to emphasize what house James was in. She gave only as much info to answer the question as she needed without potentially giving away anything she didn't want exposed so early in the series, if, indeed James and Co. were Slyths. She didn't actually misdirect anyone - she simply didn't reveal all she knows. Or not. Can you tell I'm sitting on the fence on this one? > > Tanya here > > Further responding to the idea against them being in Slytherin. It says in > book 5 that Sirius > said he was a disappointment to his family. Now, if he had been in > Slytherin, then things might > of been different as the Blacks favoured the pureblood notion, etc, etc. Marianne again This carries more weight with me than the "James as Gryff Chaser" reason for believing MWPP were Gryffs. It would make sense that things between parents and son would gradually get worse and worse over the course of several years. Although, on the other hand I can also see Ma Black getting increasingly shrill with her son, who was sorted into Slytherin, and, dammit, refuses to act like one! Marianne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 00:14:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:14:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88626 Andrew wrote: Ron will be valuable to Harry in the series, and I can definitely see Ron as Head Boy. Isn't Head Boy an academic honor, based primarily on marks (grades)? That's why James was made Head boy even though he wasn't a prefect. (I'm betting on Ernie McMillan as Head Boy, which will free both Ron and Harry to concentrate on fighting Voldemort in Book 7--though if they want to be aurors, they'll also have to work on their NEWTs.) Carol From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 23:22:21 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:22:21 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > While I'm online, let me continue my rant against the idea that > Dumbledore is Ron and Hermione is McGonagall. > > If JKR was going to use time-turning to solve the problem of LV, she > could have just as easily had someone kill Tom Riddle off as a baby > and avoid the whole problem. Why have Dumbledore/Ron bumbling > along? Why bother writing these stories if she had a cure-all in > mind all along? I'll feel cheated if that is how this whole thing > ends. I agree. Ron=Dumbeldore would be too easy an ending and, really a pathetic cop-out. In addition, to make it work you have to make the plot far more twisted and complicated that JKR writes. She likes to write in layers, and she likes things to be as complicated as life, but it still isn't as knotted as a time traveller changing the past would be. In addition, you have the butterfly effect. By changing even one little thing, you will change the course of history greatly and irrevocably. By merely existing and with the knowledge he has, Ron would just... well, the story would be impossible by now. Anyhow, I don't suppose Ron would be the type to just let Tom frame Hagrid for the Chamber of Secrets when he knows who is really at fault. Nor does he seem the type to let someone die over it. There's my two Cents. Frost From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 23:28:49 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:28:49 -0000 Subject: James Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88628 Dumbledore refers to "Lily's sacrifice", and because of this sacrifice, Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, yada yada. And, HER blood is the only blood that could be used for the charm? What about James' blood? BUT, even more importantly, what about James' sacrifice? Didn't he sacrifice himself for Harry and Lily? If Voldemort killed James, and then he attempted to kill Lily so he could get to Harry, wouldn't his spell have rebounded on him, because of James' 'protection'? And, let's not forget, Voldemort didn't necessarily want to kill Lily anyway, "Stand aside silly girl"! There's something wrong with this, it doesn't make sense. "lizvega2" From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 23:57:45 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:57:45 -0000 Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88629 Assuming the Marauders were all in the same house, and assuming, that each house has five boys/girls (Sorting Hat has to 'quarter' them all when they get sorted- OOP) who was their roommate, as yet unmentioned? Harry, Ron, Dean, Seamus, and Neville. That's five. James, Sirius, Remus, uugh-Peter (I really can't stand even thinking about that horrible -yuch-anyway), that's still just four. I still think Jo has been skirting the house issue for the Marauders, which leads me to think that there's something of importance there. My theory: They were all in Slytherin, and Snape was the fifth! There have been no clues about James and co.'s houses, and since I believe that Harry's supposed to unite the magical community as a means of 'vanquishing' (NOT KILL, it never says kill!)the dark lord, I think he might have a different opinion of uniting with Slytherin, if he knew his dad was a member of that house. This would also explain James' casual attitude about stealing the snitch (Remind anyone of a certain pale, pointed-faced boy?). And, remember what else the Sorting Hat said, that Gryffindor were the greatest of friends with Slytherin, as Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw were. "lizvega2" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 00:26:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:26:31 -0000 Subject: Is Mark Evans being protected by Mrs. Figgs and Mundungus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88630 "vmonte" wrote: > Many fans believe that Mark Evans will probably begin Hogwarts in > book 6. > If this is true... > Why does Mark Evans live in the same town as Harry? > Is it just a coincidence that this character lives in the same town > as Petunia's family? (A magical child with the last name of Evans-- > the maiden name of Lily and Petunia?) Is this child a distant > relative of Petunia or Lily? > > Did Petunia have two children? One with magical powers that she gave > up? If Petunia had a child with the last name Evans, it would have to have been illegitimate and born before her marriage. Mark Evans is ten years old in OoP, five years younger than Dudley (and Harry). It would have been extremely hard to hide his existence from Vernon Dursley if he were Petunia's child. As I've said in some two dozen posts, I do believe that Mark Evans is significant, that his home town and last name are no coincidence, that he is in some way related to Harry on his mother's side, that he will probably show up at Hogwarts as a Muggle-born first year in Book 6--but Petunia's child? No way in this universe or the WW? Carol From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 14 00:31:47 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:31:47 -0000 Subject: Salazar's dagger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > We are already well acquainted with Godric'?s silver sword set with > egg-sized rubies in the handle; the Gryffindor weapon. I wonder > whether we've already met Salazar's weapon? Anyone else noticed the > silver dagger at the end of GoF? > > Quote: "He [Wormtail] pulled a long, thin, shining silver dagger from > inside his robes... 'Flesh - of the servant - w-willingly given - you > will - revive - your master.'" (GoF p. 556 UK Ed). Wormtail then > proceeds to cut off his own hand. > > No mention of any precious stones or the like on the handle of the > dagger, but apart from that I find it interesting that it is made of > silver; not just steel, signifying it is expensively wrought... Any > thoughts as to whether this could be our first glimpse of the > Slytherin weapon? > sachmet96 I always thought the dagger was only a ceremonial dagger and never used for a 'real' weapon as silver is a very soft material and just not suited for weapons of any kind as it would dent as soon as it hit/was hit by most other weapons/things. So it is actually quite useless. Of course you can still kill people by stabbing or such but I don't think Salazar would have such a weapon as one of a stronger material would have been more useful. I can't see Salazar with such a weapon, but of course he could have had it to show off. And I can't remember but is Godric's sword really made of silver, wouldn't that indicate that he couldn't/didn't use it in a fight but only wore it to show off? But what's interesting is that the house colours of Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor have silver, gold and bronze in them. As far as I can remember gold is the softest of the three, bronze the strongest. Hufflepuff doesn't have any metallic colour. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 00:43:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:43:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kristin1778" wrote: > Marianne "kiricat2001" wrote: > > > > > JKR may want someone in Harry's generation to play that part of > information provider, as a parallel to how Dumbledore has been used, > and Hermione would be the logical choice. It just makes her a little > > less "real" to me. > > > > > > Marianne > > > > I think this is exactly what JKR intends with Hermione. Check out > what she has to say about Hermione in the CoS DVD interview: > > "I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your > readers something just put it in her. There are only two characters > that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is > Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept it's > plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much > everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, > she's handy." > > That's what's so frustrating about what both Dumbledore and Hermione > have to say about Sirius in OotP, because I think it's JKR telling > us how it really is. Only, I disagree with it. > > Kristin If you're referring to Hermione's psychoanalysis of Sirius (seeing James in Harry, etc.), it's possible that she may be wrong in this instance (though I don't really think so). Notice that this time she's not presenting factual information that she's read in a book (like apparating from Hogwarts being impossible). She's analyzing a fellow human being (who happens to be twice her age, male, and a former prisoner, all of which is outside her own experience). She's an astute observer, but her interpretation in this instance needs to be balanced against the concrete evidence of Sirius's own behavior. In other words, I don't think you need to feel uncomfortable disagreeing with Hermione about Sirius. She's still a kid, and she's not infallible despite her intelligence and photographic memory. (She suspected Snape of being after the philosopher's stone in Book One, remember?) Carol, who hopes that Hermione will be wrong about crumple-horned snorkaks (sp?) From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 00:45:21 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:45:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James Potter References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88633 lizvega2: "Voldemort didn't necessarily want to kill Lily anyway, "Stand aside silly girl"! There's something wrong with this, it doesn't make sense." Voldemort was probably unconcerned by the actions of a 'mudblood' and did not feel the need to kill her, perhaps feeling that the power in Harry came from James the pureblood. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amani at charter.net Wed Jan 14 00:44:59 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:44:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight2King--Hermione is McGonagall References: Message-ID: <00b701c3da37$a371b360$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > I just want to register my protest of the use of time travel as a > major plot device. JKR used it once in POA to good effect, but to > make it part of the solution at the end of the series is a different > matter. > > Julie: I read the essay and thought it was fascinating. However, making these two main student characters the same people as two main teacher characters violates one of the main rules of using the time turner...allowing your future self to be seen by your past/present self, even if the self is diguised. Taryn: But that isn't a "if you see yourself you'll ruin the space-time continuum" kind of rule. It's a "you might just kill yourself thinking it was Dark Magic" kind of rule. By the time Ron would grow up into Dumbledore, there's no chance of young Ron mistaking DD for himself. >_> After all, Harry saw himself across the lake in PoA and nothing was ruined because of it. Then again, I adore the REDHEAD ALWAYS theory, but I don't think it's going to happen. (Not as much of a fan of Hermione going back with him, which seems a bit overkill to me.) --Taryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 00:52:54 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:52:54 -0000 Subject: fudge the 3rd power? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88635 Something that struck me as I went though OOP for the 100th time was that Fudge has all that Voldemort wants. He has: -Considerable power over the WW -Is apparently breeding horrible creatures -Can overrule the greatest wizard in modern times -Controls the press to a degree that a public that fawned over Harry in book 1 thinks he's lost it in book 5. -Uses the Sirus Black escape as a chance to streanthen his power over the law enforcement section of the WW -Is in contact with the muggle PM and very likerly the only such channel. He has enough influence with the muggle PM to get him to have the Muggle Police looking for Sirus without much evidence. I think that Fudge is an 'evil overlord' in his own right. His actions in OOP make sense in this light, with him strenthening his powers before Voldemort can become strong himself. If Harry's lying, Fudge is still powerful, if he's telling the truth, Fudge will be ready for him. Like many other less-than-savoury govenments, Fudge is reducing the military potental of the WW's population and strenthening his controls of the press. He's now may have to take public action against Voldemort, but he's still in control. Thoughts? Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 00:53:10 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:53:10 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88636 This may be the first part of several posts I wanted to write about the possibilities and problems of time travel in the HP books (hoping I'll ever get to writing the others parts). It was inspired by the DD=Ron theory, which was suggested by several people, and is only a part of the Knight2King theory, which is extensively discussed by its originators in http://homepage.mac.com/ixchelmala/Knight2King/Personal51.html. Even if this theory is not true (read on for my personal problems with it), JKR have already made use of time travel in PoA, and it is a fair gamble she will somehow use it again in the future books. In the first five books JKR have demonstrated that, although she plays the universe building game in a very creative way, she tends to compromise internal consistency here and there for dramatic effect. Until now, these inconsistencies (for example, the Number OF Students issue and the problem of pensive objectivity/subjectivity) were not very serious, and personally I much prefer a captivating-but-slightly- inconsistent story over a boring-but-perfectly-consistent one. If, however, JKR is going to use time travel again, and especially if she does it Big Time, such as in a DD=Ron twist, I really hope she did her homework *very* carefully, because time travel is dangerous, not only for the traveler, but for the Author. There is no subject like time travel to get you into a novel-shattering paradox or three. Time travel was extensively discussed in science fiction and, in fact, in theoretical physics. There are several optional theories of time travel, each with its own set of premises, problems and paradoxes. The simplest (well, the less complicated) theory that allows traveling to the past manages to avoid the paradoxes by assuming that What's Done Is Done (WDID) and you can't change it. Harry and Hermione's 3 hours excursion into the past in PoA suggests that this is the theory that JKR prefers. If you read it again you will notice that JKR carefully arranges the plot so Harry and Hermione don't change anything that had already happened the first time around. In fact, Harry enables something that had already happened to take place, when he casts the patronus and saves the past HRH lives from the dementors. This is allowed in the WDID theory because we know that in the past, HRH were really saved from the dementors. So "helping the past along its way" is OK in this theory, but changing it is Not Possible (for an excellent and detailed explanation of this point, see http://www.hogwarts- library.net/reference/potterverse_faq.html#time_travel ). DD also seems to act upon this theory, because he does not send Harry and Hermione to change something that happened in the past, but something that, at that point in time, did not happen yet (that is, Sirius' execution). Note also that when DD sends Harry and Hermione to the past, he had already witnessed that Buckbeak was stolen, and so he knows that if he sends them back in time, it is possible for them to "help the past along" by doing the stealing. No paradox. The price that the WDID theory pays for avoiding paradoxes is that it tends to lead to depressingly deterministic scenarios. Contemplate Harry and Hermione from 3 hrs in the future sitting outside Hagrid's cabin and listening to the voices of the past Hermione and Harry (as well as Ron and Hagrid) inside. Harry wants to go inside and grab Scabbers-Wormtail, preventing him from escaping. Hermione stops him from doing so. But according to the WDID theory, even if Hermione would have agreed with Harry, they could not have entered the cabin. Something would have prevented them from doing so, because What's Done Is Done and we know that they did not get inside and Wormtail did escape. This becomes more depressing if you think about the DD=Ron theory. According to this theory, Ron is somehow transported, at some point in time (probably during book 7, but before the outcome of the final battle between Harry and LV) about 130 years into the past and becomes DD and a teacher in Hogwarts. He knows that Tom Riddle is going to be born, turn into LV, start a terrible war and kill a lot of people, and he has to sit and watch it all happens as it already had happened, and he can't do a thing to change it. He knows that Riddle will kill Myrtle and frame Hagrid. He knows that Wormtail is going to betray James and Lily to their death. He knows that he (DD himself) will neglect telling Harry about the prophecy, that LV will take advantage of this to trick Harry into the DoM and Sirius will die there. But even if he does try to do something to prevent it, he will fail. Even if he tries to shout while passing Harry in the corridor: "Don't go to the DoM by the end of the year! If you do Sirius will die!" something will happen that will prevent him from shouting, or will prevent Harry from hearing him. Because Ron-DD knows that DD did not warn Harry, and What's Done Is Done. This sounds weird, but then again, all time traveling (and many other kinds of magic) are weird. Yet WDID is fully consistent in its weirdness. No paradoxes. It is just that, IMHO, this scenario is very depressing. Not to mention that it makes the whole "Sirius death was my fault" speech of DD at the end of OotP a lie. If you also don't like this scenario, then you may allow (or, more to the point, JKR may allow) that it is possible to change the past. In PoA this is suggested by one piece of canon: Hermione's fear about interfering with the past. She claims that one of the most important wizarding laws is "Nobody's supposed to change time", and that Prof. McGonagall told her that wizards that tried to do it "ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake". According to the WDID theory it is possible to kill your future self (although it is, again, depressingly deterministic because you then knows that in your future you are doomed to travel to the past and die by the hand of your past self, and there's no way you can avoid it) but it is *not* possible to kill your past self. So unless McGonagall mislead Hermione, JKR employs a different time travel theory than WDID, and it *is* possible (although dangerous and forbidden by law) to change the past in the Potterverse. But when you allow for changing the past, this is when the paradoxes start to raise their ugly heads and bite their own tails with vengeance. Consider again Ron transported more than a hundred years into the past and becoming DD. He may not know who was Tom Riddle's mother, but surely he can locate the Riddle family. Riddle is not a common name, after all, and we are talking here about the great DD, with 70 years time for preparations. He can prevent Tom's father and mother from ever meeting each other, and Tom Riddle from ever being born. Failing that, he still could ensure that Tom would be adopted by a loving wizarding family, instead of growing up in a muggle orphanage and becoming a lonely person full of hate. Failing that, he could have personally instruct Tom in Hogwarts and prevent him from ever going to the dark side (again, we are talking about the great 90-yrs- old DD and an 11 yrs old boy). Failing even that, he could have stop Tom before Myrtle's death and defeat him when he is still very young (well, maybe he couldn't do that. Here we get to the disturbing question, is the prophecy valid 40 years before it was ever made?). So why didn't he do any of these? If, for this or that reason, he avoids meddling with the past, then this again becomes similar to the depressing WDID scenario. But if he does do any of these, it all becomes even more disturbing: If he manages to prevent the first and second war from happening, then the incident in which Ron was sent to the past also would not have happened, and then, there should not be a DD at all. And in the meantime, what happens to Harry, LV, and all the rest of the people at the present that is now very different? Do James and Lily suddenly spring to life? What happens to the present DD??? Most ways I know for tackling such paradoxes involve multitude parallel universes, and I'm not going to even try getting into this. This is JKR we are talking about, after all, not Asimov or Heinlein. So you can see why I am apprehensive about the DD=Ron theory, although I concede that it has some surprising support in canon and also sounds just like something JKR might pull out of her hat. In fact, I am apprehensive about any use of the time travel in a big way, unless JKR manages to get it all both internally consistent, plot-wise satisfying, and intelligible. This is not impossible, merely very tricky. In fact, I think I can see more than one optional way to bring off a DD=Ron twist. Wait for part 2. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 00:58:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:58:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Privet Drive protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > simigis at y... quotes from canon: > > >"For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at > >his uncle's sausage-like fingers with his left hand, > >his right maintaining a grip on his raised wand. Then, > >as the pain in the top of Harry's head gave a > >particularly nasty throb, Uncle Vernon yelped and > >released Harry as though he had received an electric > >shock--some invisible force seemed to have surged > >through his nephew, making him impossible to hold." > > >Note that Vernon is standing inside the house, but > >Harry is outside. Do people within the boundaries of > >Privet Drive who try to hurt Harry get zapped because > >of his mother's protection and Dumbledore's charm, or > >did Harry zap him unintentionally? He is holding his > >wand, after all. > > I don't think it's the magical protection; I think Harry zapped him > unintentionally. Magic will apparently protect almost any wizard given the > opportunity (look at Neville's relatives dropping him out windows), and > we've already seen Harry doing this sort of thing for most of his life > before he even knew he was a wizard. > > Also note that Harry himself is now aware of this possibility and is trying > to avoid accidentally doing magic during his confrontation with Dudley. > > > Janet Anderson Carol: In this case, it's also a matter of timing. Uncle Vernon feels the electric shock because he happens to grab Harry just at a time when the scar hurts (Voldemort is probably angry about something). But Uncle Vernon no doubt thinks that Harry did it on purpose, and the reader may think so, too, just as we though Snape caused Harry's scar to hurt in our first encounter with him in Book One. The fact that Harry has his wand in his hand when Uncle Vernon feels the shock is irrelevant; the real cause of the shock is Voldemort's anger surging through Harry. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 01:30:57 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:30:57 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King--Hermione is McGonagall! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88638 Julie wrote: And she wouldn't question Dumbledore wanting to place Harry where he belongs. Or even if she did question it, she'd do it using different words/argument than we see McGonagall use in the first book. vmonte responds: I reread the begining of book 1, the scene with Minerva and DD, and I'm starting to agree with both Julie and Helen. DD seems to be working alone. I wonder if Ron transports himself back in time on purpose or if it some sort of accident? Maybe everyone will think that he is dead but he isn't (die Ron die theory). If he was sent back accidently, then I wouldn't blame him for trying to change events whenever he could. In fact I could see Ron going back in time and being asked who he was and just saying "I'm... Dumbledore!" (Just like Harry did on the Knight bus when he said he was Neville!) I agree with Helene that time travel will appear again and DD as Ron was something I also thought of (not as cleverly or intricately as her wonderful essay). The only other idea that came to my head instead of time travel was that perhaps that Dumbledore is a true Seer (not like Trelawney--who I still think is a fraud--In the U.S. there is a very popular psychic who speaks to the dead. The garbage this guy spews is just as nondescript and fits almost anyone.) I'm starting to think that the curse of time travelers and Seers is that in the long run they end up changing very little. Perhaps this is why Dumbledore tells Harry that he was considering eliminating Divination as a school subject--because in the long run does it's not really useful or helpful. It's almost like the mirror of Erised. (You get stuck in fantasy and you forget to live.) Voldemort would have done better to stick to the business of taking over the world instead of fixating on what amounts to a very nondescript--horoscope. Voldemort is making the prophecy come true From elizabeth1603 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 01:33:24 2004 From: elizabeth1603 at yahoo.com (elizabeth1603 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:33:24 -0000 Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88639 "lizvega2" wrote: > I still think Jo has been skirting the house issue for the > Marauders, which leads me to think that there's something of > importance there. My theory: They were all in Slytherin, and Snape > was the fifth! And many others have been speculating on this topic. I don't have my book with me, but is there not a scene, under a tree, next to the lake, where Harry thought Ron resembled James and said (paraphrasing) that he was reminded of another Gryffindor who messed up his hair the same way? Sorry for the poor paraphrasing. Didn't Harry (who saw James in the pensieve) tell us James was a Gryffindor? Elli From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 01:59:05 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:59:05 -0000 Subject: Minerva & DD-Transfiguration Professors-have they been playing other Charact In-Reply-To: <001f01c3d86c$7a1d1620$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88640 vmonte wrote: <*snip*> Can a wizard transfigure into a cat (for example) and not necessarily be an anamagi? Marianne: Well, Krum tried to transfigure himself into a shark for the second task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. So it seems to be implied that wizards can transfigure themselves into another life form. Which then begs the question, what's the big deal with Animagi, if a wizard can transform himself into whatever other animal he chooses? > Taryn: > IMO, this is answered, but I suppose it's debateable. I'll give the following quote from Quidditch through the Ages: > So it seems answered that when a person is TRANSFIGURED into an animal, they also retain the animal's brain, which is certainly detrimental. This is opposed to Animagi, who seem to retain their mind. For the most part, anyway, as we must remember Sirius talking about how his emotions were simpler when in dog form, so he could slip past the Dementors. But it seems a very dramatic difference between the two. Now Carol: I think that Animagi can transform themselves at will and instantly into a particular animal. They don't even require a wand or a spelll to do it (Sirius's wand was taken from him when he was sent to Azkaban but he could still transform himself into a dog even in prison). It takes long years of study and practice to become an Animagus, so the process must be more complex than a simple transfiguration spell. The dog, cat, stag, rat or whatever retains a knowledge of who he is and some ability to understand human conversation and can return to human form at will. I suppose that some of these details also apply to Krum, who may be an unregistered shark animagus for all we know, but would have limited opportunities to use that ability in Durmstrang or Bulgaria. ;-) Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 02:15:34 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:15:34 -0000 Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88641 Elii wrote: Didn't Harry (who saw James in the pensieve) tell us James was a Gryffindor? vmonte responds: Yes, but Harry probably assumes that his dad was in Gryffindor, like himself. That doesn't mean that he's right! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 02:28:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:28:33 -0000 Subject: Mysterious Prophesies (was genealogy of HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88642 > Arya wrote: > I keep coming back to the question of *how* those recordings get into the Hall > of Prophesy. I'm convinced it is some magical, automatically generated thing > that when an authentic prophesy is made, a recording then appears int he > hall because it would be impossible to rely on people to report eh occurence > of a prophesy. > And now, this whole thing has me contemplating the nature of the DoM and > all the prophesies kept there. Or--why was there not a recording of > the second prophesy at the end of PoA that foretold the return of the Dark > Lord? In fact, in PoA, Dumbledore seems only but mildly concerned that > Trewlawney made a prediction that night to Harry. Carol: Very interesting speculations. I don't have any real answers, just some comments relating to the second prophecy. It's possible that it did end up in the DoM and we just don't know about it because, unlike the first prophecy, it wasn't important to the battle sequence. Neither Voldemort nor the DEs knew about it, and in any case, it had already come to pass. Now if a Ministry of Magic employee had heard it when it "automatically" arrived and bottled itself, it might well have had some interest to Fudge, but apparently that didn't happen. So maybe it's still sitting there unheard and unlabeled in the DoM? Its significance to us as readers (and to Harry and Dumbledore) is chiefly to indicate that Trelawney, in her moments of possession (or whatever), is a genuine Seer. I think we can expect a third, more significant, prophecy, from her in Book 6 or 7. We can also examine the second prophecy and compare it with what actually happened to determine how prophecies work in the WW. The first prophecy, like the second one, will come true--but how? Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 02:54:39 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:54:39 -0000 Subject: Maroon/Ron=DD hypothesis In-Reply-To: <000001c3da25$87c20370$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88643 In reading books 6 and 7, this will be the real test of Ron=DD. Ron can't know about the Prophecy before he goes back in time. There is one other possibility that does involve time travel, but NOT Dumbledore as Ron... and that is, perhaps Dumbledore himself is traveling back in time to advise himself. Perhaps Aberforth Dumbledore is, indeed, Albus Dumbledore, only a future Albus Dumbledore who has gone back to tell the current Albus Dumbledore what to do. vmonte responds: I wonder if the mirror Sirius gave to Harry can be used for Ron to communicate with himself (DD) or Harry. Now that the mirror is in pieces it is possible that Harry will give a piece to Ron (who then accidentally gets transported in time. Ron and Harry (or DD & Ron) will then communicate across time. vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 03:53:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:53:16 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88644 > ALI wrote: > die, and I'll still end up surprised. However, I think it's more likely > that Harry won't die. Pure speculation on my part, I realize, but JKR > seems too attached to Harry to kill him off.-> > > Sawsan: > I hope he won't die. That would be like watching Titanic all over > again. A great series with a horrible ending. I believe, though not > strongly, that he won't die, but in one of JKR's interviews, she > seemed ready to kill him off asap; and she always adds whenever anyone > asks about Harry's future that he might not live. I think the lady doth protest too much whenever the question is raised. she's trying to keep open the possibility in readers' minds that she might kill Harry, but I doubt that she'll really do it. (She has also mentioned at least once that she hasn't entirely rejected the possibility of an eighth Harry Potter book, but in her original vision the series ended with the seventh book because Harry's Hogwarts career will end at that point.) Harry starts out as the Boy Who Lived, and chances are he'll end that way as well. Carol, who wants to see Harry end the series as a "normal" wizard boy who becomes an auror (along with H and R) in the Epilogue From jakejensen at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 04:21:09 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:21:09 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" < > June: > No - I haven't. I hear what you are saying and I think you are > quite unwilling to listen to MY points. I have yet to read a > convincing rebuttal of the points I have made in answer to this > theory and the various "clues" you say prove it. All I have read is > a constant re-iteration along the lines of "Vampire's can vary... > there is more to Vampires than you know..." yada yada yada. First, this is not really an accurate protrayal of previous posts. I am not sure why, but you seem determined to be very angry at anyone who even suggests that Snape might be a vampire. Let me be the first to say that I understand you don't agree. That is cool with me. I don't see why you get angry? It really takes all of the fun out of this (I put up with enough angry people in my real life as a teacher). I know you have a lot of passion in what you believe. I know you make some good points. Just take a deep breath and make your case. People will listen. June: Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you > all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I believe > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So go > on - what's your excuse? Did you read the post I tossed up last night? It is just one example of why it might matter. I am sure others have many different ideas. It seems everyone has a different way the want the story to go and how Snape's history (whatever it turns out to be) will fit in. In a nutshell, something very significant had to happen to Snape to drive him from LV and the DE and too DD. Does that mean he has to be a vampire? No. I just think there is some fun canon support for it and it is a stimulating idea to consider. If it turns out to be wrong, oh well. A lot of theories on this board will (and already have). Jake From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:45:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:45:45 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88646 "rtb333" wrote: > There has been a lot of debate on whether Snape is a Vampire or not. > My inclination is, does it really matter? Of course not. Snape is > still a nasty individual regardless. (Though I think he is one of the > most interesting and unpredictable) I don't want to discourage > debate on this topic, but I would like someone to tell me why it > would matter if Snape is a Vampire or not. Carol: My original question was similar to yours, why anyone would *want* Snape to be a vampire and how it would advance the plot. My reason for *not* wanting him to be a vampire is simply that I like him as he is: complex, mysterious, slightly sinister and yet endlessly fascinating. I want to know why he became a Death Eater, why he switched sides, and what exactly he's up to in and out of Hogwarts. I see no reason to add vampirism into the mix, especially because that would be too close to what's already happened with a less complex character, Lupin. We don't need the same plot device twice, and especially not with Snape, who is already the most intriguing character in the book. Why does it matter to me whether Snape is a vampire or not? Because I care about Snape, and I want his motivations to be fully human with no concealed "abnormality" as the source of his fascinating behavior. I also, frankly, don't want him to drink blood, sleep in a coffin, be "undead" or have a parent who's "undead," or any of the other traditional vampire trappings. I like the glimpses of his backstory that we've seen so far in the occlumency chapters and I want more of the same. I know the vampire advocates claim to care about and admire Snape, but if that's true, I wonder why they're focusing on the the (perceived) "monster" and not the man and why they would accept a generic explanation for his behavior rather than a personalized and original one. In short, if you care about Snape, it matters. If you don't, it doesn't. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 05:23:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:23:35 -0000 Subject: Parvati Patil (Was:Recurrences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88647 Kneasy wrote: ... thinking about some of the creatures that Harry has had to deal > > with over the past 5 books when I began to discern a pattern. > > > > ... he has had to deal with some unfriendly life-form that tries to > > rip his guts out, he has already has seen/met/had dealings with .... > > > > So we have: > > > > -Python in zoo > > -Snake at Duelling Club, > > -Basilisk > > -Lee Jordan's spider (??His pet trantula??) > > -Aragog > > Pavarti Patil. Not an Arabic or Egyptian name. The name sounds more > > likely to be Persian or Indian. So why does she fear a Boggart > > masquerading as a bandage wrapped mummy, which is strictly > > Egyptian ... and when her own mythology has some very nasty beasts > > of its own? > > > bboy_mn: > > Why does anybody fear anything? As far as I can remember, Seamus and > the Banshee is the only example of someone fearing something > significantly related to their own culture. That's one out of ten. > Given that only one out of ten had a culturally oriented Boggart, why > would it be unsual for Pavarti to fear something that she must > certainly be aware of, that most people of all cultures are aware of, > and something that most people would logically fear. We fear what we > fear, it never makes logical sense. Carol: It's Parvati, guys, and IIRC, Parvati, Padma (her twin's name), and Patil are all Indian names, but Parvati and Padma are as Anglicized as anyone in the books. I think a mummy is just something that a kid who's been taught that mummies are real might be scared of. Presumably she doesn't have anything in her own life (a scary relative or whatever) to be afraid of. I do agree with Kneasy that most of the monsters Harry faces have been foreshadowed, however, (Remember the spider on Harry's sock in chapter 2 of PS/SS? Unlike Ron, he's not afraid of spiders because he dealt with them every day while he lived in that closet.) so I wouldn't be surprised if a mummy shows up somewhere. (Or a vampire, either, as long as it isn't Snape!) I do wonder what's up with the Patil twins, since JKR has gone out of her way to make them different, in contrast to the minute and subtle differences between Fred and George. Will Parvati do something brave? Admittedly, she stood up to Draco when he was teasing Neville during their first flying lesson and she's a member of DADA, but that's all we've seen so far. Carol, with apologies for straying from the original topic From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 05:44:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:44:14 -0000 Subject: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88648 > > Carol wrote: > > > >Granted, Ron wasn't a great success as a prefect, ... > > bboy_mn responded: > > Why wasn't Ron a great success as a Prefect? I was thinking of his total inability to control Fred and George. He was intimidated by them; Hermione wasn't. We really don't see him in the prefect role very often, but Hermione has to remind him on several occasions that he's a prefect. b-boy wrote: > Ron was an average typical Prefect; he did just as good a job as > Seamus or Dean would have done. The difference is, in times of > trouble, I would much prefer to have Ron there than Dean or Seamus. In > times of no trouble, they are about all equal. Carol again: Probably true! I think, though, that Ron was appointed more for his potential and his friendship with Harry than for his leadership skills, which are not the same as personal courage. (I agree with you that he's done many brave things, most notably going with Harry to face the spiders despite his terror of them. Fearlessness is not courage; overcoming your fear and doing what you must do is.) Also, Seamus's temporary animosity toward Harry when he believed the Daily Prophet is a good reason *not* to make him prefect. Dumbledore made the correct choice, whatever his reasons. > > > > Carol continues: > > > > (I doubt very much that Ron will ever become Head Boy, ... > bboy_mn: > > Sadly, I can't disagree with you about Ron becoming Head Boy. I really > really REALLY want him to, but I think when the time comes, Harry will > be Head Boy. But, for what it's worth, I think Ron will be Quidditch > Captain, and he already has an award for Special Services to the > School, so he is making a name for himself. > > As a side note, I'm pretty sure Head Boy and Head Girl are a > school-wide honor, not a house honor; that is, 6 prefects per house, > but only one Head Boy and Head Girl for the entire school. So it's > possible that NO Gryffindor boy will become Head Boy. I find it hard > to believe that anyone other than Hermione could be Head Girl. > > You have to admit that no student has proven themselves to such a > degree and in so many ways as Harry. I think that puts Harry at the > head of the line for Head Boy. Carol: I think Head Boy is an academic honor, and I agree that it probably won't go to a Gryffindor because they won't have time to put in the study time needed for top marks. My candidate, as I said in a paragraph that you snipped, is Ernie MacMillan. It's time that Hufflepuff received an honor or two, don't you think? But I agree that Ron will be quidditch captain, and he'll deserve the honor. Carol, who doesn't believe that Ron will die in Book 6 or 7 and hopes he'll find a way to become an auror From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 06:01:07 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:01:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, and a NEW Flint!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88649 Jo Serenadust wrote: > Hermione isn't *always* right (although OOP tempts the reader to > believe she is), and I expect there will be a day of reckoning in > book 6 or 7 when everyone will realize it. Personally, I truly > can't wait for that to happen since "little Miss Perfect" rather got > on my nerves in OOP ! I've been wondering since I first read OoP whether "Little Miss Perfect" might be a typographical error (maybe a bad correction by the editor that was never re-corrected) for "Little Miss Prefect." Rita Skeeter would see Hermione's badge and know that she was a prefect, but I don't know why she would consider Hermione "perfect" unless that was a sarcastic term for "Know-it-all." It bothers me that "Little Miss Perfect" is repeated several times, so that if it really is an error, it was deliberately perpetuated. (If it were JKR's own typo, somehow overlooked by copy editors and proofreaders, it would have occurred only once.) Anybody? Carol From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Wed Jan 14 06:01:20 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:01:20 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88650 amanita: Should we be keeping a careful eye on DD? I think we should. May DD is the one who will build this thing that will help Harry fight Voldemort! spangb From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 06:17:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:17:28 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > I have been seeling lots of talk about Mark Evans. People saying > that he could be another wizard like Harry, or even perhaps one of > Harry's relatives. While re-reading through Order of the Phoenix I > came across something that seemed to ruin these ideas. > > Hardback page 143 "The Hearing". > > "Dumbledore stood up and gave MRs. Figg his chair, conjuring a > second one for himself. > 'Full name?' said Fudge loudly, when Mrs. Figg had perched herself > nervously on the very edge of her seat. > 'Arabella Doreen Figg,' said MRs. Figg in her quavery voice. > 'And who exactly are you?' said Fudge, in a bored and lofty voice. > 'I', a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter > lives,' said Mrs. Figg. > 'We have no record of any witch or wixard living in LIttle > Whinging other than Harry Potter,' said MAdam Bones at once. 'That > situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past > events.'" > > This seems to ruin any theories about Mark Evans. > > Andrew The Evanses are Muggles (Lily is a Muggle-born witch), and Mark is probably a Muggle-born wizard, so the MoM wouldn't know about them. I've speculated in the past that a common ancestor (say, Lily's grandfather and Mark's great grandfather) was a Squib. There's no reason that the MoM would know of Mark's family's existence or that they had a magical child. (The names of the magical children are written down in a book at Hogwarts, but the MoM wouldn't have access to the book.) JKR doesn't plant names without a reason, and neither the neighborhood nor the last name is likely to be a coincidence. And don't forget Mark's age in OoP: he's ten, just the right age to go to Hogwarts in Book 6. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 06:42:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:42:31 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > Carol wrote: > come to the shop accompanied by his wizard father and must have been > listed in the book that records the birth of magical children or he > wouldn't have received a letter from Hogwarts.> > > Sawsan here: > Hagrid does have powers, but after the Chamber of Secrets problem > during his school year I think they might have stopped him from using > them. In the Sorceror's stone he uses his umbrella to light a fire and > he grew a pig tail on Dudley. So he must be a wizard. He just probably > isn't allowed to use it that much considering his record. He did ask > Harry not to mention it to anyone. Filch, who is a squib can't do any > sort of Magic at all apparently, and neither can Mrs. Figg, who is > another squib. As for squibs and magic, I think that, just as > severelysigune wrote, they are the exact opposites of muggleborn wizards. Carol: Hm. I wasn't arguing that Hagrid is a squib. Far from it. I was using him as an example of a person to whom Mr. Ollivander sold a wand even though he must have known or guessed that he wasn't a fully human wizard. My point was that Mr. O. probably would not have sold Hagrid a wand unless he had proof that Hagrid was a magical child (a letter from Hogwarts) and that he would not have sold one to Filch at all because he would have sensed that he wasn't magical--or at least not magical enough to use a wand--and young Filch would not have been able to present a letter he had never received to convince Mr. Ollivander otherwise. But, as I also said, he could have bought a used wand in Knockturn Alley where the salespeople wouldn't have Mr. Ollivander's scruples. Unfortunately, Filch would no more be able to use the wand than nonmusical me could play a bagpipe. As for what Squibs are, they can see Hogwarts and other sights that are hidden from Muggle eyes and the two we've seen so far seem to communicate almost telepathically with cats, so they're exactly witch/wizard-born Muggles. They're somewhere between a completely non-magical Muggle and a full-fledged witch or wizard. Carol From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jan 14 08:42:34 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:42:34 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" < > > June: > > No - I haven't. I hear what you are saying and I think you are > > quite unwilling to listen to MY points. I have yet to read a > > convincing rebuttal of the points I have made in answer to this > > theory and the various "clues" you say prove it. All I have read > is > > a constant re-iteration along the lines of "Vampire's can vary... > > there is more to Vampires than you know..." yada yada yada. > > First, this is not really an accurate protrayal of previous posts. June: It is. That's basically the summation of everything you have all had to say. I propose reasons why Snape is not a vampire - out in daytime, eats, etc and you all counter with "Oh, well there's much more to vampire lore than that". You cannot effectively counter the actual points I have made though. And at the end of all that, the Vampire Potion. I > am not sure why, but you seem determined to be very angry at anyone > who even suggests that Snape might be a vampire. Let me be the first > to say that I understand you don't agree. That is cool with me. I > don't see why you get angry? It really takes all of the fun out of > this (I put up with enough angry people in my real life as a > teacher). I know you have a lot of passion in what you believe. I > know you make some good points. Just take a deep breath and make > your case. People will listen. June: Firstly, I'm not angry - I'm amused by why your lobby is so determined to crush debate on this issue and not by logical rebuttal of well made points (Snape's wand - which a vampire is not allowed to have is a point - and not one of you has actually even attempted to argue that...). And it's a fairly poor way to deal with argument by attributing non-existent emotion to the arguer. So far I've been threatened by "metaphorical" razor blades , I've heard the same repeated shifty attempts to move the "vampire lore" goalposts whenever a good point is made that you the pro-Vampire theorists cannot effectively counter, the absurd suggestion of the vampire controlling potion, and the highly amusing false logic that says, "If you think it is a bad thing that Snape is a vampire, then it shows how the series needs a vampire character to demonstrate the power of prejudice". All these made me smile by the way, rather than grind my (filed-down) teeth. Is that the best you can all do? I've made my case. People are listening and a number of posters have agreed. Have I won my case? Well put it this way, there is no doubt in my mind that were this a case in law in England, with Snape accused of vampirism, and yourselves prosecuting with me defending - on the basis of the points you (the Vampire!Snape lobby) have made so far, would see your case thrown out. It's a draw at least or a collapsed case for you! You make no point that establishes that this is anything other than a highly speculative theory. I personally have no problem with you believing and supporting this theory - different ideas on this board are its making. I reserve the right to challenge your logic and the evidence you have used, and also the right to put forward counter evidence of my own. However it is plain from a re-read of this present thread that I have been involved in that you (collectively) are not prepared to argue point by point in order to defend it against someone who thinks it is not a believable theory. That's all - you are quite at liberty to believe this theory if you wish, as I keep saying, just don't expect me to. And don't throw collective hissy fits because I don't. > > June: > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you > > all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I > believe > > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So go > > on - what's your excuse? > > > Did you read the post I tossed up last night? It is just one example > of why it might matter. I am sure others have many different ideas. > It seems everyone has a different way the want the story to go and > how Snape's history (whatever it turns out to be) will fit in. In a > nutshell, something very significant had to happen to Snape to drive > him from LV and the DE and too DD. Does that mean he has to be a > vampire? No. I just think there is some fun canon support for it > and it is a stimulating idea to consider. If it turns out to be > wrong, oh well. A lot of theories on this board will (and already > have). > I've read all the posts on this part of the thread. I can't individually answer them all - that would be the kind of monomania that would fit me for induction into your ranks! (That was irony folks - enjoy!) I think it is an even more fun idea for him to have just an attitude problem. As a human being. There's a lot of canon support for that too. More in my not so humble opinion. June "Oderint dum metuant" From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 10:46:02 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:46:02 -0000 Subject: Salazar's dagger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88654 sachmet96 wrote: > I always thought the dagger was only a ceremonial dagger and never > used for a 'real' weapon as silver is a very soft material and just > not suited for weapons of any kind as it would dent as soon as it > hit/was hit by most other weapons/things. So it is actually quite > useless. Of course you can still kill people by stabbing or such but > I don't think Salazar would have such a weapon as one of a stronger > material would have been more useful. I can't see Salazar with such a > weapon, but of course he could have had it to show off. > > And I can't remember but is Godric's sword really made of silver, > wouldn't that indicate that he couldn't/didn't use it in a fight but only wore it to show off? Berit replies: Godric's sword is indeed made of silver; it says so at the end of CoS. And it was obviously strong enough to kill the basilisk (and the dagger was strong enough to chop off the hand of Wormtail). Maybe the sword and the dagger aren't pure silver, but a blend of silver and some stronger metal, but they still have enough silver in them to be called silver weapons (just like most gold jewelry are not made of pure gold). The silver dagger in GoF has an aura of being "seremonial", especially the way it is used. But that doesn't have to stop it from having belonged to old Salazar... I'd say it makes it more likely. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 10:53:59 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:53:59 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katrina" wrote: > > Nevertheless, I suspect that your suspicions about Egypt are good > ones. > > Tangentially, each of Harry's encounters with LV have been either > underground or in a place otherwise associated with death. If this > pattern is to continue, then perhaps they will meet in (under?) an > Egyptian tomb. > This underground/death ground recurrence is an interesting addition to the collective rag-bag of possible pointers to the way the series may progress; though you may get mutterings from LOONs about Harry and Quirrell!Voldy in the Dark Forest. Best to ignore them; constructive connections are much more interesting than mere facts, I always say. Though I have stated my attraction to the Egyptian motif, I can't think how Harry could reasonably get there. But perhaps he won't need to. Do you think there could be some interesting Oriental artifacts bought at Borgin and Burkes hidden away in Malfoy's secret cellar? Kneasy From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:38:09 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:38:09 -0000 Subject: Salazar's dagger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > We are already well acquainted with Godric'?s silver sword set with > egg-sized rubies in the handle; the Gryffindor weapon. I wonder > whether we've already met Salazar's weapon? Anyone else noticed the > silver dagger at the end of GoF? > > No mention of any precious stones or the like on the handle of the > dagger, but apart from that I find it interesting that it is made of > silver; not just steel, signifying it is expensively wrought... Any > thoughts as to whether this could be our first glimpse of the > Slytherin weapon? I always just assumed that the silver dagger was part of the spell. Not having been in Potions class myself, I'm not sure, but some things have to be cut with silver... I seem to remember Ron using a siver knife to cut something up at one point. I'll look that up tomorrow, when I have better access to my books. (of course, if someone else knows what I'm talking about, feel free to beat me to it. ^_^) So, no, I didn't think that the silver dagger was Slytherin's, or even necessarily expensively wrought. Just... silver. Frost From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:40:20 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:40:20 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > ALI wrote: > > I think the lady doth protest too much whenever the question is > raised. she's trying to keep open the possibility in readers' minds > that she might kill Harry, but I doubt that she'll really do it. (She > has also mentioned at least once that she hasn't entirely rejected the > possibility of an eighth Harry Potter book, but in her original vision > the series ended with the seventh book because Harry's Hogwarts career > will end at that point.) Harry starts out as the Boy Who Lived, and > chances are he'll end that way as well. > > Carol, who wants to see Harry end the series as a "normal" wizard boy > who becomes an auror (along with H and R) in the Epilogue There is a quote that I read which definately leaves the possibility of more books open. The main reason for her saying it would end at seven is that she already had the entire idea worked out. She didn't have every book written, but she did have an idea of what she wanted to happen. If anyone finds the quote that left open the idea for an 8th book , can they please post it becuase I can not seem to find it again. Andrew From abbet69 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:40:32 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:40:32 -0000 Subject: Questions about Mrs. Figg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88658 What possible role did Mrs. Figg have in the original Order and why would she be willing to give up 16 years of her life to live in a muggle town. I know she was there to watch Harry, but that's still a pretty big sacrifice to make. Abbet From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:47:16 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:47:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88659 Carol: > > Isn't Head Boy an academic honor, based primarily on marks (grades)? > That's why James was made Head boy even though he wasn't a prefect. > (I'm betting on Ernie McMillan as Head Boy, which will free both Ron > and Harry to concentrate on fighting Voldemort in Book 7--though if > they want to be aurors, they'll also have to work on their NEWTs.) With the twins out of the way, isnt it possible for Ron to really open up and become into his own. He already started this at the end of OOTP. Andrew From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 04:57:16 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:57:16 -0000 Subject: James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88660 Lizvega2: Dumbledore refers to "Lily's sacrifice", and because of this > sacrifice, Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, yada yada. And, HER blood > is the only blood that could be used for the charm? What about James' > blood? BUT, even more importantly, what about James' sacrifice? Interesting point. Maybe it's because Lily had the chance to live, and James, well, LV just was going to kill him anyways, so it didn't make a difference. Also, what about proximity? I was always given the impression that Lily was in the same room as Harry (maybe blocking LV from the Cradle in which he lay) but James was not. Could that have something to do with it? > lizvega2: "Voldemort didn't > necessarily want to kill Lily anyway, "Stand aside silly girl"! > There's something wrong with this, it doesn't make sense." > >Chris: Voldemort was probably unconcerned by the actions of a 'mudblood' and did not feel the need to kill her, perhaps feeling that the power in Harry came from James the pureblood. > I don't buy that. Remember, both James and Lily have defied the Dark Lord three times. (or at least, that is how I understand it in the prophecy... I don't think it was just 3 times between the two) and while he may just see her as a mud-blood, mudbloods disgust him. Muggles are beneath his notice, but mudblood... well, why shouldn't he kill her just because she's a worthless mudblood. She stands in his way. These words have piqued my intrest since I've read them, and I've run through several theoies, including the extrememly unlikely Voldemort was attracted to Lilly (yergh... Voldemort in love... *shudders* Of course, it would be a twisted selfish sort of love, but still... yech.). I can't shake the feeling that it will be important. Maybe this has something to do with LV using Harry's blood with Lily's blessing in it being a "twinkle in the eye" good thing? Frost From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 05:03:28 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:03:28 -0000 Subject: fudge the 3rd power? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > Something that struck me as I went though OOP for the 100th time was that Fudge has all that Voldemort wants. He has: > > -Considerable power over the WW > -Is apparently breeding horrible creatures What horrible creatures? Unless you mean Umbridge, in which case, yeah. Yes he is. And what a horrible creature it was/is! As for your theory, yeah, makes sense. He is a leader who is a there for the sake of being a leader. He's interested in Power, and in how he is seen. He presents himself as a friendly father figure, but doesn't ever take on the responsibly to care for his "children" (and the term children is used loosely here). I'll bet if anyone, he was a student from Slytherin. Frost. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 14 06:22:55 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:22:55 -0000 Subject: James Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88662 lizvega2 writes: I agree, and it even leads me more into the James mystery. In the movies and if I remember correctly, in the book, We never actually see the scene of James' death. Maybe its because he was not in the same room or maybe because he was defending them at the entrance, I don't know exactly. But that makes me wonder what is up with James's death? We know he died because JKR said that BOTH of Harry's parents were dead and never coming back, but if James' death was mentioned, it was not stressed upon like Lily's. I mean his death should have the protection like you have said, but only Harry was the one anyhow and only he could stop Voldemort that night. But for some reason his death just doesn't seem as important as Lily's, and I wonder why since he was doing practically the same thing as Lily was, protecting someone. Maybe I am making too much of it, but I am getting too paranoid about what is a clue to think straight anymore :P From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 14 06:48:54 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:48:54 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88663 nkafkafi wrote: This becomes more depressing if you think about the DD=Ron theory. According to this theory, Ron is somehow transported, at some point in time (probably during book 7, but before the outcome of the final battle between Harry and LV) about 130 years into the past and becomes DD and a teacher in Hogwarts I dont totally buy into the Ron=DD theory, though it is quite good and even has a lot of canon support.I agree with the scenario you gave, but I don't think that its Ron who is transported. Think for a moment that Maybe Ron Weasley was born sometime in 1980 and stayed Ron Weasley until something happens and causes him to take on the role of Albus Dumbledore in the Past. That would certainly account for Dumbledore's knowledge of things unknown to the people of the past don't you think? He lives out his full childhood into adulthood and then moves to the past for some particular purpose, which could still count for the WDID theory. Just because he goes to the past does not mean that he needs to change something, but is obligated to do so in his life for some particular important purpose. That way Ron Weasley does not know anything that is in the future, he only knows what he knows as Ron Weasley, but Dumbledore knows everything because he has lived in both the past and the future, which basically leaves him with no present. Sure that theory sucks really, but I am not JKR so it would definately be more interesting for her to write it out and find ways around it if it were true. Dumbledore is a very interesting fellow, and I don't put much past him, nor JKR for that matter:P From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 11:10:27 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:10:27 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy: > This underground/death ground recurrence is an interesting addition > to the collective rag-bag of possible pointers to the way the series may > progress; though you may get mutterings from LOONs about Harry and > Quirrell!Voldy in the Dark Forest. Best to ignore them; constructive > connections are much more interesting than mere facts, I always say. > Geoff: You can stretch a point here because in the Dark Forest, there are death connections because of the unicorns and there's also dear old Aragog wanting to feed his family....... From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 11:26:20 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:26:20 -0000 Subject: JKR on eighth book (Was Re: Will Harry Die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: Andrew: > There is a quote that I read which definately leaves the possibility > of more books open. The main reason for her saying it would end at > seven is that she already had the entire idea worked out. She didn't > have every book written, but she did have an idea of what she wanted > to happen. If anyone finds the quote that left open the idea for an > 8th book , can they please post it becuase I can not seem to find it > again. Geoff: Contrary to your suggestion above, I have tracked this down in the Quick Quotes setion of the Lexicon..... "CBBC Newsround Online 21 October 2002 There will NOT be an eighth Potter Book By Lizo Mzimba JK Rowling and her agents have categorically denied that an eighth Harry Potter adventure is planned. Reports in UK newspapers on Sunday and Monday had claimed that these were the titles for the remaining two Harry Potter adventures and a "secret" eighth book: Harry Potter and The Pyramids of Furmat Harry Potter and the Chariots of Light Harry Potter and The Alchemist's Cell But JK Rowling, speaking from Edinburgh, has exclusively told Newsround: "No one, literally no one, not in my family or anybody, knows the titles to Book Six or Seven. "And I'm going to keep it that way for now." No eighth adventure And a spokesman from the Christopher Little Literary Agency confirmed that the author is only planning seven books. "There is absolutely no truth in reports that JK Rowling is planning an eighth Harry Potter adventure, or that these are the titles of the remaining books to be published." How did the rumours start? The false titles seem to have emerged in early 2000. Someone in America - we don't know who - appears to have made up the three names and registered them along with Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. (At that time, the fourth book hadn't been published and the title was still a secret). Later in 2000, all four titles were transferred to Warner Bros - although it's not clear why this happened. Seven years at Hogwarts The misunderstanding that these were the names of the new Harry Potter books took place when journalists checked what names were owned by Warner Bros. Those journalists assumed (wrongly) that these must be unpublished titles. JK Rowling has said in the past that the whole Harry Potter saga fits neatly into seven books, one for each of Harry's years at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. And if she ever did write an eighth book, then it wouldn't be another adventure, but a book for charity which would be the encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world. At the moment JK Rowling is putting the finishing touches to the fifth book Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix. The film of Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets will be released next month." From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 11:55:49 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:55:49 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism.... In-Reply-To: <001101c3da2a$8211ebc0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Silverthorne Dragon" wrote: > > Why am I doing this? Because some of the arguement seems to be stemming into "modern" interpertations (which vary greatly) vs. the original, which provided bits and pieces to each of the modern versions, but has a definate set of rules of its own...and although Rowling may yet out her own spin on the myth, I suspect she will work from the original creature, and not from what writers and movie scripters have done with the myth since then--after all, what's the point in copying someone else's idea? Why not twist it your own way...? >(massive snip) > Impressive. As a reader who given the choice of 'take it or leave it' when it comes to vampires usually opts for the latter (though as a discriminating SF fan Mattheson's 'I am legend' is on my bookshelf), it fills in a lot of the blanks in my knowledge of the mythological background. I was afraid that after this the fun and games between June, Pippin and Jake would abate, but I see that they are still at it, whaling away at each other, so that's OK. I do enjoy a good dust-up on site. So far as I can see, our Sevvy doesn't seem to match any of the traditional criteria that you list. Happily, this is in tune with my own inclinations. I would hate to see him brought low by some whipper-snapper with a salt-cellar, a clove of garlic and an old tent-peg; it would be a sad end, lacks dignity, somehow. What may be significant is JKR's prediliction for reaching back to old folklore rather than dressing up the more recent presentations (House Elves, for example; she seems to have gone back to the old traditions rather than accepting the Tolkien heresies). If that holds in this case, it may explain why all the vampires mentioned in text are to be found in places far away and inhospitable. Is it my imagination or have you very carefully refrained from taking a stance on the question of Snape and his nocturnal habits? Sneaky! Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 12:10:34 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:10:34 -0000 Subject: Digest Number 4138 In-Reply-To: <20040113213204.32023.qmail@web11508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meghan Chalmers-McDonald wrote: > Kneazy: > > >> The Basilisk is derived from a snake egg hatched beneath a toad, so the > > snake aspect of my guess is covered already and if(!) I'm right, JKR rarely > > duplicates plot devices anyway. > > > Actually, according to FB it's a chicken egg on a dung heap, and according to the > traditional myths its a rooster egg hatched by a toad on a dung heap > underneath the dog star. Which makes you wonder if maybe Sirus > could had some luck with hatching a basilisk... jk. > > However, the basilisk is called the King of Snakes, so, as Kneazy > said, if the monster trend theory is correct, the snake has been > covered. > I have to admit that I quoted an erroneous source. Sad what age can do to the mental faculties. I'm more interested in your mention of the entry in FBaWTFT. Mine doesn't mention dung heaps at all, just a chicken egg beneath a toad, as does CoS. Have we found a variation between editions? If so, what else is changed? Kneasy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 12:41:45 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:41:45 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88668 sawsan_issa wrote: > I dont totally buy into the Ron=DD theory, though it is quite good and > even has a lot of canon support.I agree with the scenario you gave, > but I don't think that its Ron who is transported. Think for a moment > that Maybe Ron Weasley was born sometime in 1980 and stayed Ron > Weasley until something happens and causes him to take on the role of > Albus Dumbledore in the Past. That would certainly account for > Dumbledore's knowledge of things unknown to the people of the past > don't you think? He lives out his full childhood into adulthood and > then moves to the past for some particular purpose, which could still > count for the WDID theory. Just because he goes to the past does not > mean that he needs to change something, but is obligated to do so in > his life for some particular important purpose. That way Ron Weasley > does not know anything that is in the future, he only knows what he > knows as Ron Weasley, but Dumbledore knows everything because he has > lived in both the past and the future, which basically leaves him with > no present. Sure that theory sucks really, but I am not JKR so it > would definately be more interesting for her to write it out and find > ways around it if it were true. Dumbledore is a very interesting > fellow, and I don't put much past him, nor JKR for that matter:P Neri answers: I don't totally buy into the Ron=DD either. I was just considering possible scenarios and pointing the dangers. As I was trying to say, if JKR does it all within the WDID theory, as she did with the PoA time travel episode, then she is secured from paradox (as long as she take care not to change anything that had already happened, not an easy thing in itself). So we can all rest assure that What's Done Is Done and there is no inconsistency, except that you have to explain why McGonagall told Hermione that wizards killed their past selves when this is impossible in WDID. But this is a minor detail. My problem with the WDID version of the Ron=DD scenario is totally a matter of personal taste. I just hate the idea of DD knowing what's going to happen and can't do anything about it. Now, I don't wholly understand the scenario you described. If the Ron who was born in the 80s goes to the past to become DD, then he knows everything that Ron knows now, by the end of OotP, plus what he will learn until he goes to the past. He still does not know what was the prophecy, for example, but he does know that Harry went to the DoM and Sirius died there, and he does know that LV is actually Tom Riddle (DD himself told him that in CoS, come to think of it. Does this signify something?). Do you suggest that Ron goes to the past to become DD for some special mission, to "help the past along its way?" This is certainly possible. It is even possible that DD himself sent Ron, the young version of himself, to the past in order to become DD and carry out this special mission. OK, this might be just a tiny bit confusing, but it can be made to work using WDID without any inconsistency. Only it does not change what Ron knows. He knows about many events that are going to happen and he can't prevent them, he just has to sit and watch them as they happen. IMHO this part of the scenario really sucks, but no account for personal tastes. Neri From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 12:44:23 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040114124423.15743.qmail@web12204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88669 --- elizabeth1603 at yahoo.com wrote: > "lizvega2" wrote: > > I still think Jo has been skirting the house issue > for the > > Marauders, which leads me to think that there's > something of > > importance there. My theory: They were all in > Slytherin, and Snape > > was the fifth! > I don't have my book with me, but is there not a > scene, under a tree, > next to the lake, where Harry thought Ron resembled > James and said > (paraphrasing) that he was reminded of another > Gryffindor who messed > up his hair the same way? Sorry for the poor > paraphrasing. > > Didn't Harry (who saw James in the pensieve) tell us > James was a > Gryffindor? > > Elli *Sniped* I almost agree with the idea the Marauders were in Slytherin and I cannot argue with the ideas. In the fanfic 'Mirror of Maybe', the author goes into why Harry should not be in Slytherin: 1)It would be all to easy to assume he was the reincarnation of Voldie 2)What would the other DE children do? 3) What would the rest of the WW do if their savior was in Slytherin? (year one) 4)How would the world react to a Slytherin Parseltongue rather than a Gryffindor Parseltongue? (year two) 5)Who would have believed he did not get his name into the Goblet of Fire [as it seems most did believe him at some point during the year]? 6)He would have been arrested for going to Voldie's comeback party and admitting it. (year four). (All ideas come from Midnight Blue, not me) Im going a bit round-the-bout, but if James Potter was in Slytherin, it would be another incentive for the hat to place Harry there. Like Midnight Blue, I think Dumbledore told the hat to place Harry anywhere but Slytherin. Then there is the fact, Dumbledore only ever says Harry reminds him of his father, and that he is a true Gryffindor. That always struck me as funny, as if Dumbledore was trying to convince Harry he was a Gryffindor. If could be looked at as if he was trying to distance Harry from his father (using the teenage I dont wanna be like my parents! idea). In summery, Im trying to say, by using Harry as a model for Gryffindor and relating him to his father, JKR is inversely telling us that Harry is being made a Gryffindor, _because_ his father was a Slytherin. Chris <- who can almost convince herself that is true. Did not the books tell us Regulus was in Slytherin, but not that Sirius and Regulus were in different houses? ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Wed Jan 14 13:15:51 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:15:51 -0600 Subject: Traditional Vampirism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88670 {Kneasy} What may be significant is JKR's predilection for reaching back to old folklore rather than dressing up the more recent presentations (House Elves, for example; she seems to have gone back to the old traditions rather than accepting the Tolkien heresies). If that holds in this case, it may explain why all the vampires mentioned in text are to be found in places far away and inhospitable. Is it my imagination or have you very carefully refrained from taking a stance on the question of Snape and his nocturnal habits? {Anne} Actually, I had taken a stance last week on this...and am under the firm belief that Severus is not a vamp, based on the original legends and folklore. As you have put it, Rowling tends to hearken back to the original myths and legends and rebuild from that ground base as opposed to 'borrowing' innovations to the legends that have occurred since their original inception (which , according to law, is plagiarism anyway--not something authors like to deal with on either end. Tends to make it difficult to put food on the table through their chosen profession). The house elves (brownies) are but one example. The female (Greek--not Egyptian) Sphinx was very much taken from the old Greek myths, almost whole clothe in fact--and was one of the trails of a hero (I want to say 'Oedipus', but think it might have actually been Perseus--blast, need to re-brush up on my Greek myths again, it's only been 10 years....) as he went about doing the gods' will... All the extraneous 'vamp' characteristics are new to the myth--added by writers over the centuries to give more flavor and terror to a beast that was originally no more than a mindless monster come back from the grave. Sexuality, for example, was a trait added by Bram. Not surprising, since the story was set in Victorian times--an era that although placed high value on the etiquette of courting was decidedly VERY repressed about sex and all it entailed--so he added that element of 'danger' and 'forbidden fruit' of sexual attraction and performance of the same to further entice the reader. That element was then picked up later by other writers, and was given even more credence when Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr took on the role of Dracula in the old 'b' movies (Neither man was particularly handsome, but they did indeed have PRESENCE). It was then further reinforced by the American soap-opera-ish series known as Dark Shadows in the 1960's. From then on, the 'sexual' nature of the vamp was ingrained in modern interpretation...what should be noted however is that most of the 'sexual' attraction and reaction was on the part of the victim...and not the vamp (although many would 'fake it' in order to induce their victims to abandon themselves to the moment--thus making them even easier prey). As for reproduction---that was not presented as a possibility until after I Am Legend (in which the vampirism is a type of bacterial infection, and not all the victims died of it...in fact, at the end of the book, there was a perfectly happy, healthy, living population of vamp-virus infected folks ready to make the world their own...). That was written in the late 50's--hardly an 'old' indication of vampirism. The idea of Vampires actually reproducing (and being spelled out like that) didn't make the scene until the late 1980's to early 1990's--and I believe it was Brian Lumley with his Deadspeak series that gifted us with that (As well as some truly bizarre abilities, including shape shifting that would make most peoples stomachs turn.) in an unforgettable form. Shape shifting is another example--until Vlad took on wolf form in Bram's book, the Vampire was a corpse with no particular ability to gain a shape other then the one it had died as. As for where Bram got it--well, witches and warlocks were known to shape shift, as part and parcel of them accepting a contract with the Devil in order to gain special abilities that no man should have. Incidentally, Bram's Dracul mirrored that contract to become a vampire, so the construct there is as much a 'witch' or 'warlock' as he is a vampire. Add to the that the Historical Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Dracul ('Dracul' translates as Dragon--a symbol of the devil in the area where he lived), who was so bloodthirsty let he left the decapitated and mutilated bodies of his enemies on poles outside the road leading to his castle, and you have one hell of an image to use. Mind reading/control/mucking about with the dreams. Again, a Bram Stoker invention, right along with the 'link' of vamp with victim....all to add to the growing horror of the victim probably never being able to escape the situation. Half-vampires....I'm not sure where this concept came into being, although possibly newer writers twisted the original victims existence as they died from being victimized into the concept (Still alive, but craving blood because the sickness granted by the Vampire the victim had fallen prey to had passed that part of the curse on already). The earliest example I know of on this score (and someone else has already mentioned) Is the Japanime movie called Vampire Hunter D (1982 was the original release of the first movie), in which the title character, a vampire hunter, also happens to be half-vampire (Dhampire), and a direct descendant of Vlad himself (although it's never clear whether D is Vlad's son or simply a descendant--the story actually takes place far in the future). The indications in this movie is that you can be 'born' a vampire--by the consummation of a vampire with a human (although they never really explain how, so sex would be the immediate assumption), and those that are created in such a way are considered 'impure' because they have human blood in their veins (an interesting parallel to the 'Pure Blood' mania of certain Slytherin and other HP universe families). Let's see...what else... Daywalkers...again, literary licences taken by Bram and others, although by recent literary times, Daywalkers are relegated to those vamps that have returned to the Light, feed on older and more powerful members of their own kind, or take some sort of potion/drug/drink that enables them, for short time spans, to walk into the light. Incidentally, it should be noted that Bram actually researched the original Vampire legend thoroughly before re-writing it to suit his needs....which is part of the reason that it's difficult to separate his version of it from the folkloric legend--he actually worked off the primary base to make it more believable.... Much as Rowling does with her own interpretations of the various legendary creatures she uses.... Thanks for the compliment, old man....I feel very honored....^^ Anne From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 14 14:00:24 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:00:24 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88671 The main reason time-travel is not a clumsy and very unsatisfying plot device is that you can make up any rules you want. "You can go back in time to participate in saving Buckbeak, but not to kill Tom Riddle." It is not like there are some laws of physics involved ? it's all science fiction. This means JKR can make up any laws she likes to make it come out the way she wants. And that's too easy and therefore not a very satisfying in the end. Second, the whole distinction between "you can go back in time to participate in events so that they occur the way they really did" and "you can't change what already has occurred" doesn't really hold. In an editorial over at mugglenet, they analyze the night Burkbeck was saved in POA to show (as JKR has it) that Buckbeak was never really killed ? but they have to admit that history after 8:45 PM that night was changed. And if history has to be changed, why can't you go back and just kill off Tom Riddle? (Also JKR has McGonagall telling Hermione that there are instances of wizards going back in time and killing their earlier selves -- so under her theory you can change history.) Third, time-travel is fun if you don't think about it too much. Consider Harry making his Patronus on the night Buckbeak was saved. Harry1 sees Harry2 produce a Patronus and so he knows he (Harry1) can do it. But this is the Chuck Berry Paradox from the movie "Back to the Future" where the Michael J. Fox character learns Chuck Berry's guitar licks off Chuck's records but then teaches Chuck those same licks over the telephone ? in effect the earlier Chuck Berry learns his licks from the future Chuck Berry. There is no point in this circle for Chuck to actually create the licks. And the same problem applies to Harry: he can make a Patronus because he already did it because he can do it . . . All in all, if time travel becomes an essential part of the final events in the series, I will feel cheated. We will have been wasting time reading and thinking about an unsatisfying sci fi novel. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 14:08:18 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:08:18 -0000 Subject: When did Slytherin become the Evil House ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88672 Hi all ! Many weird thoughts have been crossing my mind lately. I'll write down a few of them, and you can remind me how dumb and twisted I am :- ) By the time Harry and Co enter Hogwarts, Slytherin has acquired a reputation as a House that prefers purebloods and that spawns evil wizards by the dozen. But I'm wondering when that reputation was born ? Has it always been that way, or did it become that way when it became obvious that many of LV's supporters were former Slytherin students ? One important consequence, for example, would be that the Marauders could have been in Slytherin without it meaning anything. LV started gathering his supporters at about the same time the boys entered school, so they could have been sorted in Slytherin without it meaning that they were somehow evil, or that their families had long delved in the Dark Arts. So can anyone point me to any canon that would indicate when Slytherin House's reputation was built ? Del From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 14:33:31 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:33:31 -0000 Subject: Questions about Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, abbet69 at y... wrote: > What possible role did Mrs. Figg have in the original Order and > why would she be willing to give up 16 years of her life to live in > a muggle town. I know she was there to watch Harry, but that's still > a pretty big sacrifice to make. > > > Abbet I would assume that, as a squib, she would probably not have been able to, say, become minister of magic or headmistress at Hogwarts, so Mrs. Figg probably would have not played a gigantic role in the WW anyway. Perhaps all squibs end up living as Muggles. And as to what role she may have played in the Order the first time around, I think that she was doing then what she's doing now: acting as a spy and guard. I know that there has been speculation both about the "Mark Evans" mentioned in OotP, and the owl that flapped past the window of 4 Privet Drive in chapter 1 of SS. Perhaps Mrs. Figg is an Evans family friend, and a designated guard and alert system over them. Just thoughts. Meri (who finds it interesting that the only two squibs we know about have the same initials: AF!) From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 14:35:07 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:35:07 -0000 Subject: time turner question - PoA In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040113205413.00bbd210@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer wrote: > At 19:34 13-01-04 +0000, allies426 wrote: > > As long as you keep firmly in mind that things happen only > once and that events that has happened stays happened (i.e. > that you can't change the past) then there is no problem. > Good post on the objective timeline, but this is still the problem that I have: "Harry?? realises that it was always himself who conjured the Patronus, rises and casts the Patronus Charm." I think I will have to realize that the only explanation for Harry- from-the-future saving himself is that it's magic. :) Or maybe the first time (I know some people say there was no "first time") Severus saved the kids, and then Harry went back in time and saved himself. Allie From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 14:38:46 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:38:46 -0000 Subject: The Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88675 I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what was wondering the other day: How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" were the correct words to open the map?? Tonya From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 14:43:14 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:43:14 -0000 Subject: Was LV a teacher in Hogwarts ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88676 Hi again all ! Here's another weird thought that popped into my mind. I couldn't help but notice that many of LV's supporters were very young and apparently pretty much all in Slytherin while at school. So I've been wondering if maybe LV wasn't a teacher at Hogwarts at the time of the Marauders, and recruiting young, easily convinced supporters there ? More specifically, I've been thinking that he could have been Head of Slytherin. This would have given him easy access to the Slytherin students. As for the post, well, both the Potions Master one and the DADA one were available when Snape needed a job : maybe LV had filled one of those until then ? That would also nicely fit into the Snape is a Spy theory : why would LV be bothered that Snape works for DD, if that's precisely what he had been doing himself for years ? Maybe he even planted Snape there himself, to keep recruiting for him. Now, for the most obvious problems you might mention about this theory. 1. "DD would not have let that happen." Well DD became Headmaster only shortly before the Marauders arrived at Hogwarts. LV could have been hired by the previous Headmaster, and have appeared to be a very respectable teacher for many years. And even if DD knew something was wrong with LV, that doesn't mean he could get rid of him very easily. As we've noticed several times, DD is not completely all-powerful in his school. Among other things, he's got a Board of Governors to answer to. And telling them "I have a bad feeling regarding that teacher", without any proof, wouldn't carry much power IMO. 2. "People would have noticed". Not necessarily. Nobody noticed anything wrong with Imposter!Moody for a whole year. Also, I suspect LV would not have come back under his true name. He would have taken on an alternate personality. Maybe he even discreetly killed some respected wizard and took his place (I have full confidence LV could find a way to alter his appearance). And maybe one of those people who supposedly were killed, or disappeared, during the First War was in fact the public persona of LV, who discarded it this way when he decided to drop his teaching job. Hum, pretending to be dead, does that ring a bell ? 3... Well I can't think of a 3 right now, but I'm sure many of you can, so I'm waiting for you :-) Del From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 14:44:12 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:44:12 -0000 Subject: FILK: A Hate Worse Than Ugly Trolls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88677 A Hate Worse Than Ugly Trolls (OOP, Chap. 33) To the tune of The Love From A Heart of Gold from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Dedicated to Tracy Hunt THE SCENE: The Forbidden Forest. On a deluded quest for Dumbledore's alleged secret weapon, UMBRIDGE is accosted by a herd of angry centaurs. She responds with her characteristic tact. UMBRIDGE: How can I drive off centaurs Whom I hate worse than ugly trolls? They're disgusting half-breeds And in forests trespassers Yay or Neigh, Colt or foal Brains far beneath the human Mobbing beasts who lack any soul, Oh, why can't they see I'm consumin' with fumin' And hate worse that ugly trolls? BANE (spoken): I never knew you felt that way! UMBRIDGE (spoken): Few people know this, but I'm extremely bigoted. BANE (spoken): Oh, horsefeathers, so am I! (music) Here we found this human, Whom we hate worse than ugly trolls Always blaming our kind But with little acumen, In the hole... MAGORIAN: In the hole... With each foal BANE: With each foal When you tick off a centaur You will see how we lose control Though she wants to go free we're now here to prevent her BANE & MAGORIAN: With hate worse than ugly trolls .. (The Centaurs grab UMBRIDGE and carry her off ? her screams gradually fade in the distance.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Coming soon: The Aberforth rendition of this song, "The Love of a Hearty Goat" From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 14:45:47 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:45:47 -0000 Subject: Favorite Series Lines (Was: Re: OOP:Favorite Lines...) In-Reply-To: <1dd.c6048e1.2c276d65@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88678 Hi all, I thought that the favorite lines from Order was a great thread (a lot of people seem to share my appreciation of Prof. McGonagall's insult skills), so I thought I'd ask if anyone had favorite lines/scenes from the whole series. Mine is easily the scene in SS on the Hogwarts Express when Harry meets Fred and George and they ask if Harry is really him. And he asks who. And they reply: "Harry Potter." Harry says back: "Oh, him." Also I really love when Ron yells at Pig in GoF: "Why is everything I own rubbish?" Meri From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 14 15:01:07 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:01:07 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88679 Anne: >>Rowling tends to hearken back to the original myths and legends and rebuild from that ground base as opposed to 'borrowing' innovations to the legends that have occurred since their original inception (which , according to law, is plagiarism anyway--not something authors like to deal with on either end. << Stoker is in the public domain and Rowling has already borrowed from him, at least I believe he is the one who integrated bats into the vampire legend. The vampire bat, though of course named for the monster, is a South American animal and was not part of European legends. As for the traditional vampire as sexual predator, Trachtenberg's "Jewish Magic and Superstition" gives this as a belief of Eastern European Jews, so perhaps the experts disagree. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jan 14 15:14:54 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:14:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione's perfections (was CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88680 Jo wrote: > Hermione isn't *always* right (although OOP tempts the reader to > believe she is), and I expect there will be a day of reckoning in > book 6 or 7 when everyone will realize it. Personally, I truly > can't wait for that to happen since "little Miss Perfect" rather got > on my nerves in OOP ! I agree with this, the first sentence at any rate. I'm pretty sure that Hermione's ability to be right is a piece of misdirection: JKR is setting her up for a fall. Indeed, she almost has a nasty fall in OOP, in her encounter with the centaurs with Umbridge (a brilliant piece of cross-cultural confusion, BTW, where Hermione's manipulativeness, which has been generally acceptable in Hogwarts, hits a different value system). I think the likely occasion for that fall will be her use of the name 'Voldemort' in conversation. I believe that the evidence of OOP is most easily understood as implying that there is a genuine reason for taking care about when you use Voldemort's name. This has been perverted by the bulk of the Wizarding World into an unreasoning superstition (literally unreasoning: in all his reactions, Ron never once says why one shouldn't say the name). Dumbledore and the other members of the Order presumably understand the nature of the danger, and presumably also consider that Harry, who has special protection, can safely say the name. In the context of Occlumency lessons, however, that may not be true. Snape is opening Harry's mind, so Harry, linked as he is to Voldemort, may be peculiarly exposed at these times. Or Snape, through the Legilimency link, may be vulnerable though Harry is not. Dumbledore would therefore be right to, for example, upbraid McGonagall for giving in to superstition because she can be assumed to know what the conditions for safely saying 'Voldemort' are, while Snape would be right to caution Harry in a different situation. What might be the nature of the danger? That's hard to say, but it occurs to me that 'Voldemort' may double as a spell (and the pronunciation of the final 't' may therefore be a plot point, cf Wingardium Leviosa' and other spells). As for what such a spell might do, any suggestions? David From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 15:15:30 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:15:30 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > > Fact: LV experimented with extending his life toward the end of the > reign of terror > Fact: LVs followers switched from being known as the Knights of > [something or other] to the Death Eaters toward the end of the reign > of terror > Fact: LV laments (end of GoF) that one DE may never return. > Fact: Snape left the DE toward the end of the reign of terror and > joined with DD. > > Theory: LV started to experiment on his own followers toward the end of the reign of terror. There name, DE, literally meant that he was exposing some of them to potentially deadly things (in his > experiments) > Theory: Snape, being the picked on one at Hogwarts, was also picked > on by LV. > Theory: LV transformed Snape into some sort of vampire like creature or just a plane old vampire). LV was trying to perfect an > immortality technique, but it went wrong. Jumping here to respond to this point: I think it utterly unlikely and completely out of character for Voldemort to do this. Not because he is a dear, warm hearted man, who wouldn't expriment on others, but because immortality is *his* to have (in his eyes). He might try stuff on others, but not anything that might, however remotely and dangerously, confer immortality on others. Think - if he made somebody immortal, then he couldn't kill him/her. This means that this person is at least his equal. But Voldemort is obsessed, or, more than that - his whole personality is organised around the narcissistic desire for ultimate power, which is symbolised most of all by immortality. Because immortality by definition means that you are unvanquishable. So. If Snape is a vampire (on which issue I have no clear opinions) then he became one by some other means. Definitely. Naama, very very sure From laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com Wed Jan 14 15:20:49 2004 From: laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com (laura) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:20:49 -0000 Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" < TonyaMinton at h...> wrote: > I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what was > wondering the other day: > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > were the correct words to open the map?? > > Tonya I've alwas thought that the map had some sort-of artificial intelligence, much like Godric Gryffindor's hat. Just as the sorting hat is able to think for itself and categorise the students according to the ethos of each of the founders, the map may be able to recognise a charm (?) that is suitably in keeping with the ethos of the Mauraders...for example, the map was capable of recognising Snape when he was was commanding it to 'reveal its secret" in PoA (sorry, no reference), and then proceed to insult him. I always thought that the style of insults were sufficiently different to recognise each of the Mauraders different personalities, but I need to go check that... I think it is possible that the Mauraders used the same charm that Godric Gryffindor used to imbue the Sorting Hat with brains-even if it was an immensey complicated charm, they must have been up to it, aftr all, they did become animagi... From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 15:21:52 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:21:52 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88683 Robert wrote: > The main reason time-travel is not a clumsy and very unsatisfying > plot device is that you can make up any rules you want. "You can go > back in time to participate in saving Buckbeak, but not to kill Tom > Riddle." It is not like there are some laws of physics involved ? > it's all science fiction. This means JKR can make up any laws she > likes to make it come out the way she wants. And that's too easy > and therefore not a very satisfying in the end. > > Second, the whole distinction between "you can go back in time to > participate in events so that they occur the way they really did" > and "you can't change what already has occurred" doesn't really > hold. In an editorial over at mugglenet, they analyze the night > Burkbeck was saved in POA to show (as JKR has it) that Buckbeak was > never really killed ? but they have to admit that history after 8:45 > PM that night was changed. And if history has to be changed, why > can't you go back and just kill off Tom Riddle? (Also JKR has > McGonagall telling Hermione that there are instances of wizards > going back in time and killing their earlier selves -- so under her > theory you can change history.) > > > All in all, if time travel becomes an essential part of the final > events in the series, I will feel cheated. We will have been > wasting time reading and thinking about an unsatisfying sci fi novel. Berit replies: I agree with Robert; I don't think we'll see the time turner being used again in the HP books. It has already been done. Just a comment: For Buckbeak, Harry and Hermione history was changed because they were able to use the time turner. Otherwise all three of them would have been dead (or had their souls sucked out). It didn't have much impact on Sirius's future, however. Yes, it did buy him two more years among the living, but that's all. Not much to gain for Sirius. To me it looks like the purpose of keeping him alive a little longer was to satisfy Harry's need of getting to know his godfather a little better. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From rtb333 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 14:46:20 2004 From: rtb333 at yahoo.com (rtb333) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:46:20 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" wrote: > I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what was > wondering the other day: > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > were the correct words to open the map?? > > Tonya I thought about that for a while and I couldn't figure it out. Only the Marauders knew how to use it. There is something else to think about. In the first book, it says that Ron got Scabbers from Percy. Pettegrew would know how to use the map, so did he tell the twins how to use it. It is also funny(not ha-ha funny) that Percy is power hungary and some seem to think he is evil and he was the original owner of Scabbers. Quite interesting. Do you have any thoughts on this coincidence? Rob From pfsch at gmx.de Wed Jan 14 13:53:03 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:53:03 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88685 Hi there! I wondered, why Harry never asked to see his parents' grave. Even after an Avada Kedavra curse, a corpse remain that could be buried. The books never even state if there was a funeral or something. I meen the Potters seem to have been very well-known during their life Also If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated elves, too? Bye Peter From waynegregory23 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 14 06:16:03 2004 From: waynegregory23 at yahoo.co.uk (waynegregory23) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:16:03 -0000 Subject: Give hermione a break! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88686 Can i please stick up for on of the most loyal characters in the books! Hermione has been "little miss perfect", and i agree she can be annoying! but out of all the friends Harry has made, she has been faithful to him! Everyone seems to favour Ron but look how quickly he believed everyone else but Harry about the Triwizard Tournament incident in GOF! As everyone knows this led 2 a brief fall out for both the boys! But Hermione on the other hand, although she has not agreed with everything Harry and Ron have done ( the broomstick incident in Azkabaan ) she has never seriously fallen out with Harry! She has always had his best interests at heart and should be recognised as the better of the two! i have often thought that poor Ron's flaws such as his jeleousey, and self loathing when it comes to being poor! i feel these may have played a major part in the friendship between Harry and Ron, as if Voldemort would play them against eachother! From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 15:48:11 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:48:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione's perfections (was CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88687 David wrote: > I think the likely occasion for that fall will be her use of the > name 'Voldemort' in conversation. > > I believe that the evidence of OOP is most easily understood as > implying that there is a genuine reason for taking care about when > you use Voldemort's name. This has been perverted by the bulk of > the Wizarding World into an unreasoning superstition (literally > unreasoning: in all his reactions, Ron never once says why one > shouldn't say the name). Dumbledore and the other members of the > Order presumably understand the nature of the danger, and presumably > also consider that Harry, who has special protection, can safely say > the name. > > In the context of Occlumency lessons, however, that may not be > true. Snape is opening Harry's mind, so Harry, linked as he is to > Voldemort, may be peculiarly exposed at these times. Or Snape, > through the Legilimency link, may be vulnerable though Harry is not. > > Dumbledore would therefore be right to, for example, upbraid > McGonagall for giving in to superstition because she can be assumed > to know what the conditions for safely saying 'Voldemort' are, while > Snape would be right to caution Harry in a different situation. > > What might be the nature of the danger? That's hard to say, but it > occurs to me that 'Voldemort' may double as a spell (and the > pronunciation of the final 't' may therefore be a plot point, cf > Wingardium Leviosa' and other spells). As for what such a spell > might do, any suggestions? > Berit replies: I don't think so. I believe there really is only one reason why wizards won't say the name "Voldemort": Superstition, based on fear (if one doesn't count the risk of saying it in front of a gang of angry Death Eaters only too willing to curse you for insulting their Master :-). It's hard to read something else into Dumbledore's words I think: Quote: "Call him Voldemort Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself." (PS p. 216 UK Ed). Sounds like a universal rule to me, not one that only applies to Harry (and Dumbledore). And it's not only Hermione who copies Harry and Dumbledore and has started using the name of Voldemort; if I remember correctly other Order members has too, like Lupin. I think Hermione will run into trouble because of her firm belief in her own brain, but I don't think daring to say the name "Voldemort" will be it... Berit, who always fights relentlessy against superstition whether it be in the magical or the muggle world :-) http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Wed Jan 14 16:01:27 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:01:27 -0600 Subject: Traditional Vampirism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88688 {Pippin} Stoker is in the public domain and Rowling has already borrowed from him, at least I believe he is the one who integrated bats into the vampire legend. The vampire bat, though of course named for the monster, is a South American animal and was not part of European legends. {Anne} Has she? Other then describing Snape as 'batlike' (which does not automatically translate into "Snape is a vampire", no matter how tempting it is to say so. You may as well apply a Shamanistic viewpoint to that description and say his main animal totem is a bat, since he displays bat-like attributes--and since Shaman are a type of 'wizard', it would be as likely an explanation...), I don't recall her ever mentioning that particular ability...then again, I don't have the books with me. I'll be glad to see the passage quoted that states that though. And as for Bram borrowing bats....I think that Vlad turned himself into a bat-like creature while at the castle with Harker, in order to spy on his guest from unique places, but don't recall him actually going completely 'batty' (if you will pardon the pun). Again, an actual passage clip would be appreciated, since my copy of Dracula was one of the things absconded by my former BF... {Pippin} As for the traditional vampire as sexual predator, Trachtenberg's "Jewish Magic and Superstition" gives this as a belief of Eastern European Jews, so perhaps the experts disagree. {Anne} Entirely possible, I can concede that without pain *winks*. Mythology is full of contradictions when it comes to the 'experts' hashing it out. Greek mythology alone has so many contradictions by now that it's often impossible to tell what the 'original' version of any one myth was. However, back to my point about what vampire influences are most predominant now, Bram was not using the Jewish myths to refer to--he was referring to Slavic ones (influenced heavily by Christian, not Jewish beliefs), which had a much different view of vampires and their roles in the great scheme of things. Also, as far as I knew, the Jewish actually had "Succubi" and "Incubi"--which are demons that prey on the sexual dreams of their victims. Although they could be easily identified as 'Vampires" by modern interpretations, they were considered a completely different entity--and demonic, not cursed humans--way back when folklore was not contaminated by the alterations of writers and movie scripters.... From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Wed Jan 14 16:15:26 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:15:26 -0000 Subject: Salazar's dagger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88689 sachmet96 wrote: I always thought the dagger was only a ceremonial dagger and never used for a 'real' weapon as silver is a very soft material and just not suited for weapons of any kind as it would dent as soon as it hit/was hit by most other weapons/things. So it is actually quite useless. Of course you can still kill people by stabbing or such but I don't think Salazar would have such a weapon as one of a stronger material would have been more useful. I can't see Salazar with such a weapon, but of course he could have had it to show off. And I can't remember but is Godric's sword really made of silver, wouldn't that indicate that he couldn't/didn't use it in a fight but only wore it to show off? Arya now: I think we should allow for the possibility that metals such as silver could be imbued with magic to strengthen them or give them more than just your average muggle weapon powers. I also recall Sirius and Mundungus discussing the silver cutlery in Grimmauld place and Sirius said it was something the finest 18th century Goblin-wrought silver. This makes me think of LOTR and the magic different races were able to imbue into metals and swords. ___________________________________________________________ From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Wed Jan 14 16:28:30 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:28:30 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88690 "tonyaminton" wrote: How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" were the correct words to open the map?? Arya now: I've always assumed from the Snape/map scene in PoA that the map holds a sort of sentience. It was able to recognize Snape (and appropriately insult him--greasy git with an overly large nose) for who he was and also as someone who was not meant to see the map for what it is. I imagine Fred and George nicking the parchment from the "Highly Dangerous" file and then pondering over it and what it was when, all of a sudden, the parchment starts to talk to them. Maybe questions their worthiness as rule breakers and mischief makers and, finding their aims in accordance with the ways of the Maurauders, allows them the pass phrase. ~~Arya~~ (who thinks Harry should have a talk with the map sometime) From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 16:51:45 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:51:45 -0000 Subject: James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88691 > > I agree, and it even leads me more into the James mystery. In the > movies and if I remember correctly, in the book, We never actually see > the scene of James' death. Maybe its because he was not in the same > room or maybe because he was defending them at the entrance, I don't > know exactly. But that makes me wonder what is up with James's death? > We know he died because JKR said that BOTH of Harry's parents were > dead and never coming back, but if James' death was mentioned, it was > not stressed upon like Lily's. I mean his death should have the > protection like you have said, but only Harry was the one anyhow and > only he could stop Voldemort that night. But for some reason his death > just doesn't seem as important as Lily's, and I wonder why since he > was doing practically the same thing as Lily was, protecting someone. > Maybe I am making too much of it, but I am getting too paranoid about > what is a clue to think straight anymore :P Julie: I have been looking for a connection between the deaths of James and Lily and the continuous emphasis on Lily/Harry's eyes. Lily exelled at charms. Can this be done through eyes, without wand? If so, perhaps this is why her death is of more importance. She was in the room with Harry, facing Voldemort. Any other thoughts? From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 16:58:06 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:58:06 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88692 > As for what Squibs are, they can see Hogwarts and other sights that > are hidden from Muggle eyes > > Carol Julie: That brings me to this question, and I am hoping for canon evidence (including the extra books, not just the main 5): How are Hermione's parents able to go to Diagon Alley? From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 17:06:06 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:06:06 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods, Half-Bloods, Pure Bloods, and Genetics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88693 I have a strange question that I know has been touched upon in some ways by past posts. It has been 17 years since I had genetics so my knowledge is very rusty. How is magic passed down genetically? 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? 4. Is magic genetic at all? From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 17:12:09 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:12:09 -0000 Subject: When did Slytherin become the Evil House ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > > Hi all ! > > Many weird thoughts have been crossing my mind lately. I'll write > down a few of them, and you can remind me how dumb and twisted I am :- > ) > > By the time Harry and Co enter Hogwarts, Slytherin has acquired a > reputation as a House that prefers purebloods and that spawns evil > wizards by the dozen. But I'm wondering when that reputation was > born ? Has it always been that way, or did it become that way when it > became obvious that many of LV's supporters were former Slytherin > students ? > > One important consequence, for example, would be that the Marauders > could have been in Slytherin without it meaning anything. LV started > gathering his supporters at about the same time the boys entered > school, so they could have been sorted in Slytherin without it > meaning that they were somehow evil, or that their families had long > delved in the Dark Arts. > > So can anyone point me to any canon that would indicate when > Slytherin House's reputation was built ? > > Del Julie: I think their reputation turned when LV was gaining his power and supporters. I based that on my intepretation of Hagrid's (I believe) statement in SS, "There wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." (paraphrased as I do not have my book with me). However, I still refer to JKR's interview from October 2000 when she clarified that James was a Chaser but did not clarify the assumption in the question that he was on the Gryffindor Quidditch Team. Based on that, I believe James was a Gryffindor. However, I do not agree with the thought that all Slytherins must be evil/bad. I think that is much too stereotypical for JKR who emphasizes tolerance. From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 17:13:58 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:13:58 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" wrote: > I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what was > wondering the other day: > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > were the correct words to open the map?? > > Tonya Julie: I have wondered that very thing and have yet to find any canon explanation. Here is a real twist...could this be evidence for their using time travel (as some have speculated regarding their bet on the World Cup)? From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 17:23:15 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:23:15 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88696 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" > wrote: > > I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what > was > > wondering the other day: > > > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean > how > > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > > were the correct words to open the map?? > > > > Tonya > > Julie: > I have wondered that very thing and have yet to find any canon > explanation. Here is a real twist...could this be evidence for > their using time travel (as some have speculated regarding their bet > on the World Cup)? I disagree with myself. Law of Parsimony...look for simplest explanation first. Could the map have the same characteristics as Tom Riddle's diary? From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 17:36:10 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:36:10 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88697 Julie: > That brings me to this question, and I am hoping for canon evidence > (including the extra books, not just the main 5): > How are Hermione's parents able to go to Diagon Alley? Berit replies: Seems they can, as long as they are escorted by a magical person; Hermione :-) That's what canon says. It looks like they can see and experience the magical place of Diagon Alley when they're there, but wouldn't be able to find their way there by themselves (wouldn't spot the Leaky Cauldron or its brick wall in the back yard, nor would anything happen if they tapped the brick wall I guess). Berit http:/home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 17:46:26 2004 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:26 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > So far I've been threatened by "metaphorical" razor blades , I've > heard the same repeated shifty attempts to move the "vampire lore" > goalposts whenever a good point is made that you the pro-Vampire > theorists cannot effectively counter, the absurd suggestion of the > vampire controlling potion, ... A Goldfeesh asks: Why is the thought of a "vampire controlling potion" absurd? Before reading POA I certainly never had heard of any werewolf controlling potions that I can recall. (By recall, I mean I don't remember any from popular media or folklore, although the idea of a potion could exist, I just hadn't encountered it). So, if JKR could conceive of a werewolf controlling potion, why not a vampire controlling one? After, all she does continue/use similar items/spells. If invisibility cloaks exist why should there be need of the disillusionment charm? Wizards have brooms and the Floo Network, so why have Portkeys? (June) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88699 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "evepandora84" wrote: > I was wondering why Lupin was unable to see that there were two > Harrys and two Hermiones on the Marauders Map that night Black > escaped? I mean weren't both of them near Hogwarts at the same time? > > "evepandora84" bboy_mn: Stop and think about the physical chatacteristics of the castle and grounds that are shown on the map. Hogwarts castle is a castle of mammoth proportion; bigger that any castle ever built in the real world. True you many find some real castles that are 7 stories high when measured along side a normal apartment or office building, but I seriously doubt that you can find me a real castle that has 7 floors. Example; I've seen 10 story Keep-style castles that only have 3 or 4 floors. Please note that this is something that I have researched. There are very very few castles that meet the standards of fairytale castles. Typical floor to floor spacing in a normal home is less that 10 feet. Castles on the other hand typically have 20 to 30 foot or higher ceilings. That would make the main sections of Howarts castle the equivalent of a 15 story home ((20ft ceiling X 7 floors)/9 foot floor-to-floor spacing for a typical house =15.6 stories). Notice I said house/home; office and newer apartment buildings have higher ceilings (10 to perhaps 12 ft). You can adjust the ceiling heights for the castle and a typical building, but you still still get a castle that is extremely tall. Then you have to factor in the many towers and turrets of the castle. Next the castle not only has 7 floors, but also appears to have many wings, as well as, many towers and turrets. Now add to that the grounds and you have one extremely crowded piece of parchment paper. If you've ever seen architectural drawings or floor plans, then you know the only way to get all that information on one small piece of parchment is if everything is microscopic in size. And the book backs this up, everything on the map is refered to as minute and/or minuscule. It takes a focused concentrated effort to be able to see what you are consciously trying to see, and therefore, extremely unlikely that you will accidently see other people and places that are peripherial to the main 'thing' you are looking at. Lupin saw the first Harry and Hermione because the were exactly where he expected them to be; on their way to Hagrid's. He did not see the second Harry and Hermione (time traveling) because they were out of his field of focus. In addition, part of the time TimeTraveling Harry and Hermione were hiding in the forest. We know from the book that the map has dead spots and that there are areas it doesn't cover. For example, Peter/Scabber wasn't seen until Harry/Ron/Hermione exited from Hagrid's cabin, and the Shrieking Shack in not on the map, you can't see where the Whomping Willow tunnel comes out. Conclusion; you don't accidently see things on the map. It takes a direct conscious forced effort to read it, and anything not central to your area of focus in not likely to be seen. Now to address Fred and George, and how they figured out how to use the map; I don't have any problem seeing Fred and George coming up with a phrase like 'I solemnly swear I am up to no good'. That seems the perfect phrase for mischief makers like the twins, and fits perfectly with the way their minds work. However, this thread has introduced something I hadn't considered before, that, much like Snape, the Twins found some intermediate way to communicate with the map. After trial and error they got the map to respond to them, although as in Snape's case, at that time, it did not reveal the map. Over time, the obviously intelligent map gave them clues that could only lead fellow mischief maker to the proper phrases to control the map. While I don't abandon my original belief in the Twin coming across it by trial and error, I am now willing to consider the possibility that they first found some limited way to communicate with the map that lead them by informed trial and error, to discovering the secrets of the Map. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 18:08:40 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:08:40 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > {Pippin} > > Stoker is in the public domain and Rowling has already > borrowed from him, at least I believe he is the one who > integrated bats into the vampire legend. The vampire bat, though > of course named for the monster, is a South American animal > and was not part of European legends. > > {Anne} > Has she? Other then describing Snape as 'batlike' (which does not automatically translate into "Snape is a vampire", no matter how tempting it is to say so. JKR has introduced vampire bats into canon. Sort of. In 'Quidditch through the Ages' there is a report on the dirtiest match ever played - Flanders vs Transylvania - where the Transylvanian captain releases a hundred blood-sucking vampire bats from under his robes. Though there's no indication that they were vampires in bat form or that WW vampires could transform into bats. And since vampire bats are a naturally occurring animal and not supernatural or mystical, I can't see how it helps in the Snape!Vampire stand-off. Keep it up! Kneasy at all From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 18:15:35 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:15:35 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods, Half-Bloods, Pure Bloods, and Genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > I have a strange question that I know has been touched upon in some > ways by past posts. It has been 17 years since I had genetics so my > knowledge is very rusty. How is magic passed down genetically? > 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. > 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. > 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? > 4. Is magic genetic at all? Meri here: I am no geneticist, but I don't know if it is as simple as having a magical gene or a magical chromosome that gives a person magical ability. Perhaps it is something more akin to an inheritied talent (like the Force in Star Wars) that manifests itself in certain people. And maybe having two wizards for parents merely increases the likelihood of magical offspring to near certaintity, but, because of the existence of squibs, is no guarantee that your kid will get an acceptance letter from Hogwarts. As to the halfbloods, on the other hand, they exist because witches or wizards intermarry and produce off-spring with Muggles or other creatures, and since these marriages seem to always produce a magical child (Seamus Finnegan, Tom Riddle, Hagrid are some examples) we can assume that magical ability is not a trait inherited through the normal crossing of chromosomes, otherwise we would have evidence of at least a few children of one magical/one Muggle parent who is all Muggle. (Who knows? Perhaps Seamus has a sister who takes after Mr. Finnegan?) As to your third question, being a pure-blooded wizard, IMHO, has less to do with the number of Muggles in your family or your opinions on Mudbloods (though those are some definig factors of certain pureblood families) and more to do with the status of your family, so being a pureblood versus a Mudblood could be more akin to being royal or noble versus common than being of a pure race versus a mixed racial background, at least that's my interpretation. Meri (who now wishes she saved her science 101 textbook for this discussion but needed the buy-back money) From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 14 18:20:00 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:20:00 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88702 If you think Hermione doesn't make mistakes, here is an idea I posted last year: How do the House Elves get freed? It cannot be by merely touching clothing. The Hogwarts students get their clothing cleaned, presumably by the House Elves. In Book 1 chapter 5 when Harry receives his letter from Hogwarts, it says that the students should have their names in their clothes. Why would this be if their clothes weren't somehow mixed up with other people's clothes, and it is only during cleaning that this would happen. The clothes aren't cleaned magically wherever they drop them and left there. The House Elves are freed only if their master hands them some clothing (like with Dobby at the end of COS). Dobby treats Harry like a master in the scene in OOTP 27 where he warns Harry that Umbridge is coming to the Room of Requirement. So presumably the students count as "masters." But they still must hand clothing to the Elves to free them. The Elves can pick up the dirty clothing of the students and clean them without being freed. It is only being handed the clothing that counts. So ... this means that the great Hermione Granger is making a mistake when she thinks that the hats she is knitting and leaving around the Gryffindor Common Room will free the House Elves. How did she think her clothes were being cleaned for years? The Elves can pick them up and nothing will happen. But the Elves are still annoyed that someone is trying to trick them and so they do not clean the Common Room. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 14 18:25:46 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:25:46 -0000 Subject: the Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88703 How did Fred and George get the Map in the first place? What is the chain of custody from the four creators down to them? The answer to that probably will explain how they know how to use the Map (and, as usual, I hope it doesn't involve time travel). Bobby From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 14 18:34:49 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:34:49 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods, etc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88704 One of drjuliehowards' questions is: at what point is a wizard a pure blood? I don't think there is such a thing as a "pureblood." Unless there was a separate magical Adam and Eve (or whatever people really arose), then all magical people have muggles in their family trees. "Pureblood" is just a term some witches and wizards use to feel superior but who cannot indentify the muggles back in their genealogy. If Hermione marries a wizard and has children, her children wouldn't be "purebloods" even though both parents would be magical because she can identify the muggles in her children's genealogy. Bobby From koukla_es at yahoo.es Wed Jan 14 18:41:43 2004 From: koukla_es at yahoo.es (neith_seshat) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:41:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, and a NEW Flint!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I've been wondering since I first read OoP whether "Little Miss > Perfect" might be a typographical error (maybe a bad correction by the > editor that was never re-corrected) for "Little Miss Prefect." Rita > Skeeter would see Hermione's badge and know that she was a prefect, > but I don't know why she would consider Hermione "perfect" unless that > was a sarcastic term for "Know-it-all." It bothers me that "Little > Miss Perfect" is repeated several times, so that if it really is an > error, it was deliberately perpetuated. (If it were JKR's own typo, > somehow overlooked by copy editors and proofreaders, it would have > occurred only once.) Anybody? > > Carol I, for one, think she used that term to mean she's a know-it-all. Remember she was the one that discovered Rita's secret and locked her in a jar for a while; Hermione is also blackmailing her to write an article, whose content Rita dislikes at first. So, I think calling her Miss Perfect is a way to show her contempt about the whole situation. Just my thoughts, Neith From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 19:07:04 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:07:04 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88706 Bobby wrote to counter some more anti-MWPP in Slytherin arguments: > (1) How could Harry be the Heir of Gryffindor is James was in > Slytherin? Simple: one's ancestry does not determine which House > you go in ? one's choices do. However, in the next point Bobby wrote about the possibility of Sirius being in Slytherin: > He might be an automatic Slytherin (like Malfoy just touching the > Hat in PS/SS 7) ? would Sirius even have time to argue and choose > Gryffindor like Harry did? KathyK: I know I snipped a good portion of your counter arguments but this is what concerns me. In point 1 you argued that one's choice determines what house a student is sorted into rather than ancestry. And then in point 2, you argue the opposite--and I know it is only one possibility but you put it there. Sirius may have been sorted into Slytherin without being given a choice by the Sorting Hat. Using Draco Malfoy as an explanation of how Sirius may have ended up in Slytherin is problematic, IMO. True, Malfoy says he knows what house he'll be in. And as an example he uses the fact that all his family has been in Slytherin. Then, indeed the SH immediately places him in Slytherin. However, one must take into account that Malfoy clearly *wants* to be in Slytherin. When he talks of his family all being in that one house, he doesn't say it as if he's doomed to the same fate. Rather, it always was quite clear to me that Malfoy ended up right where he wanted to be. He looks pleased as he heads over to sit with Crabbe and Goyle. While I believe that MWPP were all Gryffindors, I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion as to why because many of my reasons have already been stated by others. You're right, we don't know whether or not Sirius at age 11 was already rebelling against his family's ideals. This indeed would play into which house Sirius may be sorted into. If he believed at 11 as Draco Malfoy does, there's not a doubt in my mind he'd be sorted into whichever house his parents had drilled into him to be the best, or the *only* house, most likely Slytherin from what we know thus far. However, if Sirius is already having doubts about his family, it may not have been so easy for the SH just to shove him into the house his family was at, especially if the hat detected any hit of Sirius' uncertainty. That's it from me for now, KathyK From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 14 19:08:38 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:08:38 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > {Pippin} > > Stoker is in the public domain and Rowling has already > borrowed from him, at least I believe he is the one who > integrated bats into the vampire legend. The vampire bat, though > of course named for the monster, is a South American animal > and was not part of European legends. > > {Anne} > Has she? My copy of QTTA remains AWOL, but according to the Lexicon, QTTA tells that the Transylvanian team has been known to conceal vampire bats under their robes. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/q_teams_europe.html > And as for Bram borrowing bats....I think that Vlad turned himself into a bat-like creature while at the castle with Harker, in order to spy on his guest from unique places, but don't recall him actually going completely 'batty' (if you will pardon the pun). Again, an actual passage clip would be appreciated, since my copy of Dracula was one of the things absconded by my former BF...< There's a searchable Dracula online http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/dracula/25?term=bat "The Count, even if he takes the form of a bat, cannot cross the running water of his own volition, and so cannot leave the ship." > {Anne} > However, back to my point about what vampire influences are most predominant now, Bram was not using the Jewish myths to refer to--he was referring to Slavic ones (influenced heavily by Christian, not Jewish beliefs), which had a much different view of vampires and their roles in the great scheme of things. Also, as far as I knew, the Jewish actually had "Succubi" and "Incubi"--which are demons that prey on the sexual dreams of their victims. Although they could be easily identified as 'Vampires" by modern interpretations, they were considered a completely different entity--and demonic, not cursed humans--way back when folklore was not contaminated by the alterations of writers and movie scripters....<< Hmmm....Stoker was a pretty cosmopolitan fellow. I wish *I* could have dined with Oscar Wilde. He certainly seems to have drawn on the Jewish legend of the Lilit for his female vampires. Like her, they are creatures of night, drink blood, are seducers, prey on children and can be repelled by religious symbols. But then the Slavic vampire legend itself is supposed to owe something to the Lilit, so you could say that Stoker was returning to original sources. The line between demon and cursed human is not firmly drawn in Jewish tales. The Lilit was said to be Adam's first wife, created a human as he was and transformed into a demon after she rejected him. The Yiddish word dybbuk translated as 'demon' can refer to any kind of possessing entity and might even refer to a purely psychological obsession such as, erm, Harry Potter books . Anyway to steer this back to the topic, there is no question in my mind that the Bela Lugosi interpretation of Stoker's Dracula has influenced the appearance of Snape; look at Rowling's picture of him. It's in the photos section of this group in the Harry Potter and Me folder. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 19:15:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:15:44 -0000 Subject: HARRY CLUES ABOUT THE BOOKS: Something else is curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88708 Christy wrote: I had always assumed that Dumbledore knew something was happening, and as a member of the OoP, McGonagall was sent to do a task (go to this house), similar to the end of GoF, where Dumbledore just gives instructions to people and they obey without questioning him. Dumbledore does seem surprised to see McGonagall, though, so perhaps the order came from somebody else? Or maybe McGonagall had heard the rumor and went to the one place she expected Dumbledore would go... Her being there does seem kind of random, though. pitaprh (I think--unsigned post): > It has been wondered if McGonagall is not related to Ms. Figg - the > cats and the tartan references. Maybe she was visiting Ms. Figg when > the events happened and so she was there looking for Dumbledore. > That would give some explanation as to why he didn't know she was > going to be there but also wasn't surprised when she was. Carol: IIRC, McGonagall had been informed by Hagrid that Dumbledore would be arriving at 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, and she was waiting there without knowing exactly what had happened or why they were there. As for McGonagall being related to Mrs. (not Ms.) Figg (her marital status is part of the reason that the WW has lost track of her--I think she married a Muggle and is now a widow), we've discussed the possibility briefly: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86074 Carol: I think the tartan slippers are an important clue, and being related to Professor McGonagall would explain why Mrs. Figg is Harry's protector and a member of the Order even though she's a Squib. But maybe the slippers are just a red herring since Filch at one point wears a tartan scarf (CoS 125, Am. ed.) and there's no reason to suspect that he's a relative of McGonagall's. Or is there? As someone else pointed out, he has the same initials as Arabella Figg, so maybe there's a McGonagall/Filch connection, too. :-) Carol, who thinks that Mrs. Figg's maiden name will be important later and that it may well be McGonagall. See the passage in OoP where Fudge orders her to report the details of her parentage (not revealed to Harry or the reader). From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 19:18:53 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:18:53 -0000 Subject: fudge the 3rd power? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Nuttall" > > I think that Fudge is an 'evil overlord' in his own right. His actions in OOP make sense in this light, with him strenthening his powers before Voldemort can become strong himself. If Harry's lying, Fudge is still powerful, if he's telling the truth, Fudge will be ready for him. > > Like many other less-than-savoury govenments, Fudge is reducing the military potental of the WW's population and strenthening his controls of the press. He's now may have to take public action against Voldemort, but he's still in control. > I'm not so sure. I see Fudge as too weak for the 'Evil Overlord' spot, not strong enough to be ruthless and not clever enough to be truly devious. I see him as a cat's-paw, manipulated by others. He's a place-man, there to give legitimacy (and aid) to his sponsors, the DEs. Laura reminded me (thanks Laura!) of a TBAY post I made about Crouch Snr that covered just this point. Totally without shame, modesty or embarassment, I reproduce part of it below. (85535) "You don't think that young Barty was found with them DEs by accident, do you? Not what I heard. I heard it was 'arranged' by 'interested parties' to bring old Crouch down. Couldn't win, you see; either he goes easy on Barty and everybody thinks it's nepotism, or he goes hard and everybody looks at him as if he's somethin' the cat dragged in. Either way he gets knocked off his pedestal. Worked too. Bound to. Folks not so keen on his methods no more. Lookin' for an excuse to get shut of him. And suddenly there ain't so many DEs in court when old Fudge gets his feet under the desk. Has to look after his friends, don't he? O'course later old Crouch realised what had happened, so he gets young Barty out o' the slammer." He shifted to a more comfortable position. "Just somethin' I heard," he muttered. No canon proof, of course. But the thrust is that it wasn't that people wanted Fudge in so much, as they (or some of them) wanted Crouch out. Fudge ends up beholden to those that put the fix in. Very handy for those that thought Crouch was too good at nailing DEs to the wall in Azkaban. Kneasy From jakejensen at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 19:21:46 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:21:46 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jake: > > I am not sure why, but you seem determined to be very angry at anyone > > who even suggests that Snape might be a vampire. Let me be the > first > > to say that I understand you don't agree. That is cool with me. I > > don't see why you get angry? It really takes all of the fun out of > > this (I put up with enough angry people in my real life as a > > teacher). I know you have a lot of passion in what you believe. I > > know you make some good points. Just take a deep breath and make > > your case. People will listen. > > June: > Firstly, I'm not angry - If you're not angry, then why be so rude? Personally, I'm not offended by your arguments, just the way you demean everyone you argue against by stereotyping and slandering. Most people refuse to respond to you because they find you highly offensive. > > June: > > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you > > > all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I > > believe > > > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So > go > > > on - what's your excuse? > > Jake: > > Did you read the post I tossed up last night? June: > I've read all the posts on this part of the thread. I can't > individually answer them all - that would be the kind of monomania > that would fit me for induction into your ranks! (That was irony > folks - enjoy!) > > I think it is an even more fun idea for him to have just an attitude > problem. As a human being. There's a lot of canon support for that > too. More in my not so humble opinion. > I see. We (the Snape!vampire group) commit (in your opinion) the huge mistake of never responding in full to your posts (even though we have). You, on the other hand, are allowed to freely attack one (or no) argument at a time and then rudely dismiss the person and look for high fives from your buds. I often get the feeling you do not actually read previous posts. This confirms it. Example: Snape having a wand. Yes, two different people have already offered canon refuting that. For example, Hagrid isn't allowed to have a wand (according the the Ministry), but something appears to be in his umbrella. In addition, just because something is against the "law" doesn't mean DD would shy away from it. If Snape is a vampire than clearly few others know (not the MoM, that's for sure). To be honest, I can't think of a single argument of yours that hasn't been addressed (by canon) more than once. You keep saying it hasn't. But it has. You keep saying we don't give any reasons for this being important. No, we have. You just didn't read them. Sorry to get highten my tone, but I'll only put up with bullying so long. I have tried (in the past) to bring this conversation back to a civil level and hope it can still be. Jake From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 19:40:31 2004 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:40:31 -0000 Subject: A new anti-vampire acronym Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88711 A brief preface: Ever since Pippin first posted the Snape!Vampire theory I've wanted to do an anti-vampire acronym. I recall when the first vampire debates started I pulled out my dictionary-- and had no luck at all. (How did Tabouli make it look So easy?!) So may I present: S.A.N.G.U.I.N.E. Snape, A Nocturnal Grouch. Undead? Indeed Not Everyone! A Goldfeesh (who has to really hand it to Tabouli, Greywolf and all the other prolific acronym generators of the past) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 19:42:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:42:08 -0000 Subject: Family members of important characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88712 > Sawsan wrote: > Also, I noticed that the surname Snape is not mentioned on the > pureblood family tree of the Noble house of Black. That makes me think > about the scene when Snape calls Lily Evans a mudblood, and she is > shocked (I read it and thought that she was shocked because he of all > people couldnt call her that). What do you think? Come to think of it, > neither is the surname Slytherin; so if they all intermarry to keep > the blood pure so to speak, then why weren't those names mentioned? > (Perhaps I need to reread that chapter again to make sure about > Slytherin, though I don't think I came across it.) > > In fact I didn't see any of the instructors' names from Hogwarts on > the tree, if I am not mistaken. Any canon proof about any of this that > I missed guys? We don't see the entire Black family tree, which is very complex, and as we know, certain names have been removed from it, so others may have been removed as well. I think that Sirius and Harry are interested primarily in the close relationships--Sirius's first and second cousins, etc. Any person, Sirius included, has four grandparents, eight great grandparents, sixteen great grandparents, ad infinitum. It's entirely possible that the names Snape, Potter, Dumbledore and McGonagall appear on the tapestry several generations back. Consider, for example, that Dumbledore is 150 years old. His name would be rather difficult to find. I imagine that Sirius, who is not at all proud of being part of the "Noble and Ancient House of Black," has spent very little time examining the relationships depicted in the tapestry. But given the intermarriages of the purebloods, I'd be very surprised if he wasn't distantly related to Severus Snape and James Potter four or five generations back--and for that matter, to Neville Longbottom, who's described as a pureblood as early as CoS 116 (Am. ed.). However, given that Harry is considered a half-blood because of his Muggle-born mother, it's possible that James and Severus are full-bloods rather than pure-bloods, meaning that their parents were a witch and a wizard, neither of whom was Muggle-born, but they had Muggles earlier in their ancestry. The problem with that theory is that JKR herself doesn't make a full-blood/pure-blood distinction. It's also possible that James, at least, has been removed from the tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born and that Sirius chose not to point this out to Harry. My point is that there are many reasons why Harry would not have seen the names Snape, Potter, Dumbledore, and McGonagall on the tapestry, none of which precludes the possibility that these people are purebloods and related to Sirius. As noted, he didn't see the name Longbottom, either. Carol, who wants Snape to be a pureblood so that his calling Lily a "mudblood" won't be hypocritical. Carol From tigerfan41 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 19:59:24 2004 From: tigerfan41 at yahoo.com (Darrell Harris) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:59:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 4141 In-Reply-To: <1074082241.5732.12405.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040114195924.22483.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88713 RE:Message: 6 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:44:14 -0000 From: "justcarol67" Subject: Re: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) I didn't see anything indicating Ron was a bad prefect with the exception of his reluctance to confront his own older siblings. There should be at least 4 older prefects in his house who would be expected to control the older students. Experiance has shown me in this situation you can't expect a kid to control his brothers. As far as I could tell Hermione confronted them but never swayed them from doing as they pleased. Other than that there is really not much on which to judge Ron's performance. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 20:05:28 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:05:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040114200528.68277.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88714 There is also a myth in Africa that an albino black (native, whatever) person is considered a vampire. It stemmed from the idea that since those people could not hunt for game as normal people did, they were different. It became a rumor/folk talk/myth that they needed the blood of a freshly killed animal to survive. The tale says nothing about the vampire dislikeing sun or normal British/Scottish vampire banes(I think the tale used gazelle or elephant dung as repellant). It also never said anything about the vampire drinking the blood of humans. (I think this stemmed from a very light black person liking the taste of raw meat, and had nothing to do with it) This could be used for Snape if we use that odd twist of vampirism. He could be a hereditary albino, hence the very dark hair and eyes, yet very pale skin, and is from that line of vampires. It is a stretch, but it does fit the mold. Japan and China have a good vampire tale, but I forget it. Does anyone else know of it? Chris PS: I am not very pc, and mean no disrespect if I did not use the right terms. ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 14 20:06:32 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:06:32 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > > If you're not angry, then why be so rude? Personally, I'm not > offended by your arguments, just the way you demean everyone you > argue against by stereotyping and slandering. Most people refuse to > respond to you because they find you highly offensive. > > To be honest, I can't think of a single argument of yours that hasn't > been addressed (by canon) more than once. You keep saying it > hasn't. But it has. You keep saying we don't give any reasons for > this being important. No, we have. You just didn't read them. > > Sorry to get highten my tone, but I'll only put up with bullying so > long. I have tried (in the past) to bring this conversation back to > a civil level and hope it can still be. > Gently, please. Though I have to admit that if I had been more closely involved in this thread, I would have exploded long since. Although the proponents of Snape!Vampire come up with canon mentions of vampires, at no point have they linked them to Snape. The best that has been produced is that he has been described as 'swooping like a bat'. When rebuttals are made, the thread somehow shifts to differences in vampire characteristics in different lore or the existence of an hypothetical potion. The absolutely key point is *You must link your points to Snape with canon* to justify the Snape!Vampire theory. When asked for evidence of this connection the responses so far would shame a politician. But, since you express such certainty, and in an effort to prevent bloodshed: 1. Please state concisely your definition of a vampire. 2. List, with canon references, where Snape actually corresponds to these. No 'maybe's, perhaps's or possibly's'. The actual canon please. This is your chance to make your case without all the verbiage that has accumulated over the past few days. You have a clean slate. Prevarication, evasion or lack of canon connection will be taken as a failure to make your case. That will not prove that Snape *isn't* a vampire, of course, but it would explain the failure of many to be convinced. Kneasy From pfsch at gmx.de Wed Jan 14 15:36:51 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:36:51 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88716 Hi Tonya! --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" wrote: > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > were the correct words to open the map?? I suppose the reason is one of the following: 1) That phrase is like a "standard spell" between evil-doers. 2) The phrase is only one of many which "opens" the map. 3) That map doesn't react on a certain phrase, but on "key words", perhaps "no good" and/or "swear". 4) The Weasley twins had loads of time doing detention or imprisoned in Filch's office - they tried out. 5) The Marauders came around on Hogwarts grounds - so did the twins. James & Co had sribbled it down somewhere, Fred & George saw it, remembered it as a fine "spell" and tried it on the map. Bye Peter From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 16:14:01 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:14:01 -0000 Subject: Was LV a teacher in Hogwarts ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > > Hi again all ! > > Here's another weird thought that popped into my mind. > > I couldn't help but notice that many of LV's supporters were very > young and apparently pretty much all in Slytherin while at school. So > I've been wondering if maybe LV wasn't a teacher at Hogwarts at the > time of the Marauders, and recruiting young, easily convinced > supporters there ? <> > Now, for the most obvious problems you might mention about this > theory. > > 1. "DD would not have let that happen." < > 2. "People would have noticed". Not necessarily. Nobody noticed > anything wrong with Imposter!Moody for a whole year. <> > 3... Well I can't think of a 3 right now, but I'm sure many of you > can, so I'm waiting for you :-) How about this quote from DD in CoS: "Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts. He disappeared after leaving the school...traveled far and wide... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind underwent so many dangerous magical transformations that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable. Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was once Head Boy here." Basically DD is telling Harry (and us) that Before he became the Dark Lord, Tom spent his time studying, learning, and changing himself in to his "beloved" snake-faced self today. So while the idea of Voldemort teaching at Hogwarts is plausible (you do have a good point in that he could have gotten away with it), I don't think the cannon agrees with it. As Hargrid says in PS/SS, "Anyways, this -- this wizard, about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em too -- some were afraid, some just wanted a bit o' his power, 'cause he was gettin' himself power, all right." Witches and Wizards are in the end, human. And if they feel threatened (i.e. the "purebloods" have noticed that there are less and less of them, and more and more of the "mudbloods" and "half- bloods." Thus they are loosing control in the WW) they will follow a strong leader. Most notably in recent history, Hitler, Stalin and General Mau. And of these three General Moa was the worst, he continually killed his followers by rising up a new communist revolution against them. And somehow they kept coming to him. Basically, I don't think Voldemort needed to do it, and I don't think he would if he didn't have to. No matter what, he would have had to do it after spending year abroad, undergoing many transformations, and learning the worst kinds of magic. So by the time he got back, DD was probably headmaster, and he did have control over who his teachers were. Not to mention, youth led movements tend to antagonize the older generation, but the older generation (at first at least, and some till the last) agreed with Voldemort. For example, the Yippie Movement in the lat 60's. (yes, Yippies, they were the political ones. The Hippies were the useless ones.) Or for that matter McGovern, of US Politics. He got the Democratic Nomination of the Youth Vote, but well, other than running an absolutely terrible campaign, he was rejected by the adults, and Nixon won his second term by a landslide. The youth vote wasn't enough to win. As for the spy!Snape theory, why wouldn't Voldemort want a DE that was working under DD? That just means that he has someone on the inside of Hogwarts who can gather information for him, start a secret "Voldemort Youth" club, and spread dissent, place paintings with DE sympathies around (spies), etc. etc. So Basically, that would make Snape a double agent. And cue the "James Bond Music!" Frost From rhyannon at house-endymion.net Wed Jan 14 17:34:38 2004 From: rhyannon at house-endymion.net (Rhyannon) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:34:38 -0800 Subject: Hermione's imperfections References: <1074096738.4866.29972.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001c01c3dac4$b0768b70$ad01a8c0@Hedwig> No: HPFGUIDX 88718 This is my first post here, after lurking for several months. As the stay at home mom of an 18 year old, an 8 year old and a 5 year old, I'm not sure if I'm the most obsessed Harry Potter Fan in our house, just the one with the most unlimited access to the computer and the most unrestricted ability to stay up late reading... (aw the power of being the one who has her name on the mortgage and the ability to send other people to bed .....;-) Anyway, I have often observed Hermione with a mixture of fondness and embarrassment, as I was definitely one of the kids who always sounded like she had eaten the textbooks before the class, and had a real need to demonstrate my knowledge to the teachers....I'm sure my classmates often wanted to choke me! As I hit my adolescence I also discovered a "cause", I will not bore you with the details, but as I read GoF I groaned with JKR's introduction of SPEW..... b/c it so very much reminded me of the earnest, young girl I had been. I think that what Hermione most needs to learn as she matures is that she does NOT know what is best for others. Currently, she believes that because she values freedom (and freedom is a value shared by many), that it justifies her manipulation of the house elves into becoming free-- whether they want to or not. (OoP Chapter 13, pg. 255, where she leaves hats out, disguised with trash). She frequently acts as if her intelligence justifies her making decisions for the house elves despite the fact that she really hasn't spent very much time in their company, and while she may have a theoretical understanding of their history (I remember her doing research on them in GoF) she doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of their motives, their culture or their goals as a minority within the WW. Remembering my own confrontation with the reality that passion for a cause does not equate moral authority to champion it, I know that reading about Hermione's learning this lesson is going to be painful. Anyway, I really appreciate the thoughtful and interesting insights that members of this list have! Rhyannon Endymion From pfsch at gmx.de Wed Jan 14 17:55:42 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:55:42 -0000 Subject: What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88719 Hi Berit! > Julie: > > How are Hermione's parents able to go to Diagon Alley? > Berit replies: > Seems they can, as long as they are escorted by a magical person; > Hermione :-) But how did she know how to do it and where to find it? Since it is Hermione - from a book, I suppose. ;) Harry didn't know until Hagrid showed him, since there wasn't a description handed in with the invitation Harry got. Same about getting to platform 9 3/4. Perhaps there normally is a description sent to muggle-born wizards/witches. Harry just didn't get it because Hagrid accompanied him. Peter From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 14 20:20:52 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:20:52 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88720 Firstly, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time . I am trying to understand your point of view and elaborate on my own. I freely admit I haven't proved my case, and can't as yet. I just don't think it's been convincingly refuted either. > June: > Firstly, I'm not angry - I'm amused by why your lobby is so > determined to crush debate on this issue and not by logical rebuttal of well made points (Snape's wand - which a vampire is not allowed to have is a point - and not one of you has actually even attempted to argue that...). < Creatures who are legally denied wands can still use them, cf Winky in GoF. That vampires are not allowed wands is actually an argument in favor of clandestine vampire Snape, since it establishes a motive for him to conceal himself. In order for a vampire to disguise himself as a wizard, he would have to be able to conceal all the obvious indicators of vampirism, whatever they are. Vampire theorists have suggested numerous ways in which Snape could do that, none of which contradict canon, and you have refuted them on grounds which seem to me at least as speculative as the theories themselves. How can anyone prove what Rowling is going to tell us about vampires? We are all free to speculate about that. > > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I believe he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So go on - what's your excuse?<< Snape is fascinating to contemplate as he is. But this is an action adventure story. IMO, Rowling can't allow the relationship between Harry and Snape to become static; she has to keep stirring the pot. There will be new complications and new reversals of fortune, or Books Six and Seven will be a very long slog. We know vampires are hated even more than Giants or werewolves; Rita Skeeter is actively campaigning for genocide. Even the Death Eaters aren't being threatened with that. All in all, exposure as a vampire might have the same dire consequences for Snape as expulsion from Hogwarts would have had for Harry. I think it would be a splendid and necessary reversal of fortune if Harry found himself with the power to threaten Snape as Snape once threatened him. There's also a moral challenge. It's been no problem for Harry to disavow the pureblood prejudices of his adopted culture when it comes to people he likes, such as Hagrid and Lupin. But what about people he hates? If he had such a weapon against Snape, would he use it? I guess I don't understand why Snape's struggles, his joys and sorrows, should be less meaningful if he is not supposed to be human. IMO, if Harry believes that, he will fail, for Dumbledore says that the magical world must unite against Voldemort and whatever divides them must be overcome by bonds of friendship and trust. I guess it matters to me because the struggle against prejudice matters. I realize that many may disagree with me on this, but I don't think that the world is divided into bigots and good people. In the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance there is a door marked "NOT PREJUDICED." Like that door in the Ministry of Magic, it is forever sealed. Only through the door marked "PREJUDICED" may one enter. I could be wrong, but I believe Rowling is making the same point in her books: that prejudice is something that we must confront within ourselves if we wish to understand it. Pippin From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 20:24:09 2004 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:24:09 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88721 wrote: So presumably the students count as "masters." I don't think the students are considered "masters." Dobby is a special case in that he respects Harry and will do anything for him. I think Dumbledore is the master of Hogwarts and only he could free a house elf. From alina at distantplace.net Wed Jan 14 20:25:05 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:25:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Map References: Message-ID: <000901c3dadc$7f6a0260$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88722 > How did Fred and George get the Map in the first place? What is the > chain of custody from the four creators down to them? The answer to > that probably will explain how they know how to use the Map (and, as > usual, I hope it doesn't involve time travel). > > Bobby I'm sorry I don't have the time to look up in which book they said this, but I'm pretty sure Fred and George said they found it in Filch's office among a bunch of other things he confiscated and swiped it from his drawer. Alina. From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jan 14 20:26:02 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:26:02 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > Jake: > > > I am not sure why, but you seem determined to be very angry at > anyone > > > who even suggests that Snape might be a vampire. Let me be the > > first > > > to say that I understand you don't agree. That is cool with me. > I > > > don't see why you get angry? It really takes all of the fun out > of > > > this (I put up with enough angry people in my real life as a > > > teacher). June: Well let me say I'm very glad not to have you as a teacher if your attitude is so very intolerant. There, that's a personal attack if you like. And if your professional attitude is like this, I'm not surprised people get angry around you. You have persistenly attributed your emotions to me. That is flawed. I'm not angy and never have been. Slightly dismayed by the total lack of even vestigial sense of humour show, but I can live with that. I was finding this all rather amusing. It started as a reasonable discussion - canon versus theory if you like. However over the past few days I have been increasingly responded to by the likes of you as if I had no right to any opinion at all. I know you have a lot of passion in what you believe. > I > > > know you make some good points. Just take a deep breath and make > > > your case. People will listen. > > > > June: > > Firstly, I'm not angry - > > If you're not angry, then why be so rude? Personally, I'm not > offended by your arguments, just the way you demean everyone you > argue against by stereotyping and slandering. Most people refuse to > respond to you because they find you highly offensive. June: You mean YOU find me offensive because I don't agree with you! I'm not rude. I haven't been rude. My posts have taken issue with the discussion and whether or not Snape is a vampire. Your post that I am now replying to however is a personal attack on me and I find THIS deeply offensive. A full perusal of my posts on this subject will plainly make clear that I have not been insulting towards persons as individuals, though I have taken issue with some of the arguments given to me. I could also have taken issue with the tone of a number of the posts made in response to mine. I didn't because I think getting emotional about this issue is silly. I still do. I think the issue is a theory. There are a number of people on this board who think it is a good and valid theory. Fine. I think it is misguided and there are a number of people who agree with me too. They haven't joined in because they agree with what I have said. I don't generally get involved in supporting posters who say what I entirely agree with. On a smaller board I might well do so, not on this one. The majority of the posts in direct reply to what I have said have indeed been emotional in tone. I never began this. It was whomever you are saying considers me rude? You perhaps? Why is that? I made valid points about the popular conception of vampires on Sunday and was told repeatedly to everthing I said - no, that's wrong. So I argued some more - and I know I made good points. However, if the sum response offered is "No you are wrong" then I'm not impressed with this theory lobby's debate skills. The fact is there have been a number of posters who have made some good and well taken points too. I have not posted a reply to them because their points are valid, politely made, in the spirit of discussion rather than the posts that I have replied to which have been from the outset, hectoring and patronising in tone. Please cease accusing me of NOT reading the posts. Of course I have read them - with interest in most cases. I'm not going to reply to every single post on this board, because I don't have time. And board rules preclude my posting an "I agree!" or "Me too" reply. It would have been better etiquette if as you had a major issue with what I am saying and the way that I say it (which a good many people do not perceive to be a problem, whatever you may think) was made to me in the spirit of conversation off list. I have participated in a good many off list mailings and provided they are not overly aggressive, do not mind discussing matters off list with people who disagree with me. I've had some interesting conversations that way, and actually made some good "net" friends. We still don't necessarily agree, but we can agree to differ. The problem I have been seeing in these posts on this thread since Sunday is a complete reluctance on the part of you and your co- theorists to "agree to differ". You believe in your theory (and I have pointed out in every post that you are quite entitled to this) but unfortunately do not wish to participate in a reasoned discussion of it and in the end have resorted to cheap abuse. I find the charge that I demean people deeply offensive too, because it just isn't true. Perhaps you yourself feel demeaned by not winning the argument, because I've certainly noticed an increasing shrillness in the approach over the last two days. First one theorist then another pops out of the woodwork to have a go. Not one has been able to argue my very valid points. I have commented that I think a number of the cruxes of the argument are silly - not that you the arguer are silly. And I am very tired of saying in posts "Please understand I am not criticising the person only their argument" - and then having it ignored. And please do expand ,if you must, on what you mean by slandering and stereotyping? Who is stereotyping who? Who is slandering who? I have made no comments on anyone who has posted on this thread and how, therefore, can you possibly correctly make that charge against me? > > > > June: > > > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to > you > > > > all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I > > > believe > > > > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So > > go > > > > on - what's your excuse? > > > > Jake: > > > Did you read the post I tossed up last night? > > June: > > I've read all the posts on this part of the thread. I can't > > individually answer them all - that would be the kind of monomania > > that would fit me for induction into your ranks! (That was irony > > folks - enjoy!) > > > > I think it is an even more fun idea for him to have just an > attitude > > problem. As a human being. There's a lot of canon support for > that > > too. More in my not so humble opinion. > > > > I see. We (the Snape!vampire group) commit (in your opinion) the > huge mistake of never responding in full to your posts (even though > we have). June: No - you have not. You, on the other hand, are allowed to freely attack one > (or no) argument at a time and then rudely dismiss the person and > look for high fives from your buds. I often get the feeling you do > not actually read previous posts. June: Yes I have. Whatever you choose to think. I noted from your first post on Sunday night when you said people should calm down, and then you attacked my views quite roundly that you are not capable of stepping away from this argument any more than I am. You have pretended to be neutral whilst patently being nothing of the kind. This confirms it. Example: Snape > having a wand. Yes, two different people have already offered canon > refuting that. For example, Hagrid isn't allowed to have a wand > (according the the Ministry), but something appears to be in his > umbrella. In addition, just because something is against the "law" > doesn't mean DD would shy away from it. If Snape is a vampire than > clearly few others know (not the MoM, that's for sure). June: No they have not in this thread. I've read the posts. Have you? I begin to doubt it. Presumably you have been rather selective. > > To be honest, I can't think of a single argument of yours that hasn't > been addressed (by canon) more than once. You keep saying it > hasn't. But it has. You keep saying we don't give any reasons for > this being important. No, we have. You just didn't read them. > > Sorry to get highten my tone, but I'll only put up with bullying so > long. June: Once again, as parent I have to say I'm frightfully glad no child of mine has a teacher like you. Another personal attack - but I feel you deserve it. I think we have very different definitions of bullying. Mine would be that to make a public post that is a definite attack on someone because their views do not agree with yours is bullying. My saying that I was not convinced by the views offered doesn't sound like bullying to me. I have tried (in the past) to bring this conversation back to > a civil level and hope it can still be. June: I think you may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there. If this was an attempt to bring the conversation back to a civil level, I hardly think a personal attack is the way forward. I have to listen to three posters over four days who have taken an increasingly unpleasant and hectoring tone. As far as I can see, mainly because I don't agree with them. I haven't personally offered insults to any of them, though I do think some of their reasoning deeply flawed and have said so. I don't see that I am the person with the problem here. If your theory is so good, why is it necessary to crush any opposition to it? I will not post any further response on this subject because this flagrant and unecessary personal attack demonstrates to me that I do not have to say anything further to make my point. In short - if anyone else is planning a response to me of this kind: shove it. June From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 20:34:31 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:34:31 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88724 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > If you think Hermione doesn't make mistakes, here is an idea I > posted last year: > > How do the House Elves get freed? It cannot be by merely touching > clothing. The Hogwarts students get their clothing cleaned, > presumably by the House Elves. .... > > The House Elves are freed only if their master hands them some > clothing (like with Dobby at the end of COS). Dobby treats Harry > like a master in the scene in OOTP 27 where he warns Harry that > Umbridge is coming to the Room of Requirement. So presumably the > students count as "masters." But they still must hand clothing to > the Elves to free them. .... > > So ... this means that the great Hermione Granger is making a > mistake when she thinks that the hats she is knitting and leaving > around the Gryffindor Common Room will free the House Elves. .... bboy_mn: I agree, you are definitely on the right track here. However, while I agree with your overal statement I take exception to a couple of points. First, I don't think Dobby and Harry's relationship is sufficient to use as an example to prove that 'students count as Masters'. Dobby and Harry have a very special relationship, and I don't think it can serve as a model for the average student and average elf relationship. The elves server the school and the students are part of the school, therefore, elves would most likely comply with any reasonable request made by a student. That would simply fall in the domain of serving the school, but it is the school administration that has the true authority over the elves. They do the hiring, therefore, only they can do the firing. I am in complete agreement with your thoughts on elves merely touching clothing. To be an effective servant, not to mention functionally living in the world, it would be next to impossible for elves to not touch clothes at some point. But they can only be freed or dismissed from their positions by their Master specifically handing them clothes. Hermione is so unbelievably misguide in this latest attempt to free elves. The most important thing she forgot is that SHE doesn't have the authority to free any elf. Would it seem reasonable and logical that I could come into your home and free your elves on a whim? Or that I could come to your house and hand my coat to the house elf and free him. That seems a very impractical system even by wizard standards. Hermione is most lost in her S.P.E.W. effort in thinking that there is something about the house elves that needs to be fixed, but I can't agree with that. There is nothing wrong with the elves, they are happy to do what they do. Happy to do what they do, but not necessarily happy with the way the are treated. The problem is with wizards; wizards who abuse the honorable commitment made by the elves to server them. The problem is that wizards do not enter into the agreement with the same sense of honor, integrity, loyalty, and commitment that the house elves do. Hermione needs to direct all her efforts toward reforming wizards, once that is done, elves will have the good quality lives that Hermione wants them to have. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:00:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:00:42 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione/Underage magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88725 Julie wrote: > I think Hermione's use of the charm is movie contamination. I saw > the movies before I read the books and I remember that as standing > out. I agree with your conclusion that magic probably can be used > in the "protected" areas of the train and Diagon Alley. However, I > remember reading where the Weasley kids practiced Quidditch in their > field at the Burrow. That's how they knew Ginny could play. Wonder > how they got by with that? (I do not have my books with me so I > cannot reference book/page. I think it was OotP but it may have > been GOF.) Seems like Draco also talked about flying, as he was > upset about not being able to take his broom to Hogwarts his first > year. Carol: Hermione's use of the charm is movie contamination. In the book, Arthur Weasley fixes Harry's glasses with a tap of his wand (no "reparo" or any other spoken command). As for quidditch and flying in general, maybe they're undetectable by the MoM because they don't involve a wand. A better example of underage magic that doesn't get reported, IMO, is the twins making experimental products for their future joke shop, which they do while they're still underage (even though one of them, I think it's George, complains about receiving the warning letter--"I keep hoping they'll forget to give us these," or something like that). Possibly the twins get away with it because their father is hiding his own tinkering with Muggle artifacts and somehow sees to it that other MoM officials don't know what's going on at the Burrow. Also, Arthur deals with the ton-tongue toffee incident all by himself; he returns Dudley to his normal state and doesn't bother to modify the Dursleys' memories (they already know about the WW and aren't likely to talk about the incident to other Muggles). Fred gets off with no more than a scolding from his dad, who has already bent the rules by connecting the Dursleys' house to the Floo network. (Would a Muggle-born like Dean Thomas or Colin Creevey get away with similar behavior if they were as inclined to mischief as the twins?) Harry, OTOH, seems to be under constant surveillance by both the Order and the MoM. Whatever happens to him, even the move from the cupboard under the stairs to the smallest bedroom is instantly known by someone in the WW (Dumbledore?). Interestingly, one of the letters from the MoM states that "hover charm was performed" (passive voice), which leads me to wonder if the writer (Mafalda Hopkirk?) knew that Harry hadn't performed it. At any rate, while the restriction of underage magic theoretically applies to all witch or wizard children, it seems to be most strictly applied in cases where the magic might be detected by Muggles, and to Harry most of all because of the Voldemort connection, whether or not anyone besides Dumbledore knows about the Prophecy. What's more interesting to me is the difference in Fudge's handling of the later instances of Harry's underage magic--the "blowing up" of Aunt Marge is swept under the rug as accidental magic and Aunt Marge's memory is modified, but the Patronus charm (admittedly deliberate but also entirely necessary under the circumstances) is a matter for a hearing and possible expulsion. Setting aside Fudge's motives and whether he's under an Imperius curse or not, how does he know what Harry is doing? And how does Dumbledore know? Is there a spy, or more than one? Mrs. Figg (or her cat) might have known about the move from the closet to the bedroom, but not about the hut on the island. And she certainly wouldn't have reported Harry's accidental or deliberate magic to the MoM. So how do they know about it? Ideas, anyone? Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 21:01:45 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:01:45 -0000 Subject: Knight 2 King In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88726 Having read the Knight 2 King essay and worked through the threads on the subject, I felt that most of my thoughts had already been voiced by other contributors until a little thought surfaced and flitted across my consciousness today. The knight in chess has moves which are totally different to the other pieces, quirky, often unpredictable and allow the knight to get into areas of a chess game which no other piece can reach. It is perhaps a maverick piece in that situation. Ron is certainly quirky and unpredictable. Considering the chess game as a metaphor for the Second War, will this element of his nature be of value, will he indeed be a maverick who gets into areas of the action which no one else reaches or am I trying to draw parallels where none exist? From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 21:25:04 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:25:04 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > Hi Tonya! > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" > wrote: > > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > > were the correct words to open the map?? > > I suppose the reason is one of the following: > 1) That phrase is like a "standard spell" between evil-doers. > 2) The phrase is only one of many which "opens" the map. > 3) That map doesn't react on a certain phrase, but on "key words", > perhaps "no good" and/or "swear". > 4) The Weasley twins had loads of time doing detention or imprisoned > in Filch's office - they tried out. > 5) The Marauders came around on Hogwarts grounds - so did the twins. > James & Co had sribbled it down somewhere, Fred & George saw it, > remembered it as a fine "spell" and tried it on the map. > > Bye Peter Tonya again-- I have always thought that they kept working it until they figured out what to say. I have liked the idea that they were able to communicate with the map for a while then figured out the key words!! Although I did like the idea that maybe Pettigrew told the twins, but I wonder then how would he have told them?? Why would the twins have trusted him in the first place. This would be one of those things I would ask JKR about. Great discussion!! Thanks all Tonya From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 21:23:53 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:23:53 -0000 Subject: the Map In-Reply-To: <000901c3dadc$7f6a0260$a6a09c18@cr390913a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alina" wrote: Bobby: > > How did Fred and George get the Map in the first place? What is the > > chain of custody from the four creators down to them? The answer to > > that probably will explain how they know how to use the Map (and, as > > usual, I hope it doesn't involve time travel). Alina: > I'm sorry I don't have the time to look up in which book they said this, but > I'm pretty sure Fred and George said they found it in Filch's office among a > bunch of other things he confiscated and swiped it from his drawer. Geoff: Correct. Canon reports- "'And what do I need with a bit of old parchment?' said Harry. 'A bit of old parchment!' said Fred, closing his eyes with a grimace as though Harry had mortally offended him. 'Explain, George.' 'Well... when we were in our first year, Harry - young, carefree and innocent -' Harry snorted. He doubted whether Fred and George had ever been innocent. '- well, more innocent than we are now - we got into a spot of bother with Filch.' 'We let off a Dungbomb in the corridor and it upset him for some reason -' 'So he hauled us off to his office and started threatening us with the usual -' '- detention -' '- disembowelment -' '- and we couldn't help noticing a drawer in one of his filing cabinets marked Confiscated and Highly Dangerous.' 'Don't tell me -' said Harry, starting to grin. 'Well, what would you have done?' said Fred. "George caused a diversion by dropping another Dungbomb, I whipped the drawer open and grabbed - this.' (POA "The Marauder's Map" p.143 UK edition) From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 20:14:31 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:14:31 -0000 Subject: Is the Soritng fair? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Assuming the Marauders were all in the same house, and assuming, > that each house has five boys/girls (Sorting Hat has to 'quarter' > them all when they get sorted- OOP) who was their roommate, Tlpbupu: I didn't even think about the houses being "quartered" until I read this post, but it got me thinking. If each year is quartered then the students at the end of the alphabet are basically put into what ever house needs spots filled. Until OoP I just assumed that all the children where sorted according to the house traits even if that meant that the years students were not split equally. Even if one year wasn't split equally, between the seven years in each house the totals would about even out over time. (Hope that came out right!) Is there any other canon that I am missing that states how equally the houses are sorted? I just don't think that it seems right that the children who get sorted last are just used as fillers. I just took a look at Harry's sorting and just to contradict myself, there are I count 5 male Gryffindors, 5 male Slytherins (assuming that Nott is in Slytherin since there is a Nott who is a DE - father?) there are not enough people left in his year to make 5 male Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws. Now I am confused. Any thoughts? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:34:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:34:49 -0000 Subject: James and Lily, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" wrote: > > liz vega wrote: > > I've read on other sites that James and Lily were married right > > out of Hogwarts, within a year or so, Harry's born. That would make > > them either seventeen or eighteen?, Is this right? Where's the > > source for this? I didn't think there was any clue about their > ages, or anything else at this point, regarding those two. > > > Erin: > The source is JKR telling us in an interview that Snape was 35 or > 36 at the end of GoF. Since he was in the same year as Harry's > parents, that gives us their ages. > > Erin Also the Pensieve scene ("Snape's Worst Memory") in OoP shows Severus, James, Sirius, and Remus all taking their DADA OWL together, meaning that they were all in the same year. (I can't remember whether Peter is also in that scene. It's possible that he and Lily were slightly younger than the others.) At any rate, if Snape is 35 or 36 in GoF, then so are Remus and Sirius, and James would also be that age if he had lived. Subtract Harry's age in GoF (fourteen) and we have James as approximately 21 when his son was born and about 22 when he and Lily were murdered. Lily may have been even younger. I don't think we have any canonical evidence to indicate that she was in the same year as James. (Or is she wearing a Prefect badge in that scene?) Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 21:40:43 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:40:43 -0000 Subject: Favorite Series Lines (Was: Re: OOP:Favorite Lines...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: Meri: > Hi all, > I thought that the favorite lines from Order was a great thread (a > lot of people seem to share my appreciation of Prof. McGonagall's > insult skills), so I thought I'd ask if anyone had favorite > lines/scenes from the whole series. Geoff: Well, I'll start the ball rolling with one of my favourite exchanges of insults. Harry and Draco on the morning of the Gryffindor v Ravenclaw match. "'Sure you can manage that broom, Potter?' said a cold, drawling voice. Draco Malfoy had arrived for a closer look, Crabbe and Goyle right behind him. 'Yeah, reckon so,' said Harry casually. 'Got plenty of special features, hasn't it?' said Malfoy, eyes glittering maliciously. 'Shame it doesn't come with a parachute - in case you get too near a Dementor.' Crabbe and Goyle sniggered. 'Pity you can't attach an extra arm to you, Malfoy,' said Harry. 'Then it could catch the Snitch for you.' The Gryffindor team laughed loudly." (POA "Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw" p.191 UK edition) From alina at distantplace.net Wed Jan 14 21:52:09 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:52:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 8, The Hearing References: Message-ID: <002f01c3dae8$a96b3870$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88732 > I've been following this thread, and I don't have a strong feeling > one way or the other (sorry, I'll pay particular attention on the > next re-read :) ) - but for the believers, any ideas why a squib > *would* be able to see Dementors? There's nothing at all magical > about them, as far as we know; they're basically Muggles born into a > wizarding family. If Muggles can't see them, why would Squibs? > > Allie > >From reading the series, I got the feeling that Squibs aren't exactly Muggles. For example, Filch is a Squib yet didn't Hermione say that any Muggle who happens upon Hogwards will see a ruined castle and a "caution" sign? Speaking of which, does anyone remember if in POA there's any evidence that Filch either can or cannot see the Dementors? I think if Squibs were just Wizard-born Muggles, then Filch wouldn't be able to work at Hogwarts. There's another thing. There is no "legal" term for a Muggle-born witch or wizard. There's "mudblood", which isn't considered kosher. But other than that, they're still witches and wizards. Squibs, however, are clearly referred to as Squibs, not Muggles or even Wizard-born Muggles. Alina and her two cents. From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 21:58:45 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:58:45 -0000 Subject: Is the Soritng fair? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tlpbupu" wrote: > Tlpbupu: > I didn't even think about the houses being "quartered" until I > read this post, but it got me thinking. If each year is quartered > then the students at the end of the alphabet are basically put into > what ever house needs spots filled. > I just don't think that it seems > right that the children who get sorted last are just used as > fillers. I just took a look at Harry's sorting and just to > contradict myself, there are I count 5 male Gryffindors, 5 male > Slytherins (assuming that Nott is in Slytherin since there is a Nott > who is a DE - father?) there are not enough people left in his year > to make 5 male Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws. Now I am confused. Any > thoughts? Geoff: (1) Why assume that if some people are used as fillers, they are the folk at the end of the alphabet anyway? Folk have pointed out in the recent past that the Hat seems to look at students and consider their possibilites, taking into account that a new pupil may carry qualities which would fit more than one house - it has been postulated that Harry could have been a good Slytherin, that Neville might have fitted quite happily into Hufflepuff. I remember having a discussion with a teacher when I was about to enter the Sixth Form as to whether I should follow Maths and Science or consider languages as I have a fairly natural ear for them. These are in some ways diametrically opposed choices. (I went for Maths etc because I could see better career prospects at the time). If the Hat is sentient, it must know how many pupils are entering. It may not quarter exactly. An odd one or two extra will not incredibly upset the balance and it can be redressed at a later date. (2) In message 83113, I mentioned the Sorting Ceremony in PS because someone pointed out that Goyle wasn't mentioned and a second contributor suggested that there were about 40 new pupils. I wrote in that message: "Crabbe isn't mentioned either. But, come on folks, let's be reasonable. If I count correctly, there are 22 names mentioned in the Sorting Hat piece. There are things going on, people applauding, Harry worrying in between. Haven't you ever been in a situation where a list is being dealt with and your attention wanders for a moment and you miss a name or an item?" From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jan 14 21:59:09 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:59:09 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > Hi there! > > I wondered, why Harry never asked to see his parents' grave. AmanitaMuscaria : I always assumed it was his upbringing - he doesn't ask questions about his parents either, but then, he was told from an early age not to ask questions and punished for doing so. If you consider that he's been isolated from socialising influences and been given very strange messages about himself and his parents until he gets to Hogwarts, I'm amazed that JKR makes him believable as a reasonable, pleasant, tough, self-reliant teenager! > Also > > If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated elves, too? > Now, that is an interesting question. Along with whether goblins own Gringotts or are just employed there, and who won the goblin wars? Why wouldn't there be renegrade groups of elves somewhere? Perhaps Harry needs to ask Dobby? Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 22:22:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:22:51 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > While I'm online, let me continue my rant against the idea that > Dumbledore is Ron and Hermione is McGonagall. > > If JKR was going to use time-turning to solve the problem of LV, she > could have just as easily had someone kill Tom Riddle off as a baby > and avoid the whole problem. Why have Dumbledore/Ron bumbling > along? Why bother writing these stories if she had a cure-all in > mind all along? I'll feel cheated if that is how this whole thing > ends. I just want to know how Dumbledore/Ron could get himself born into the Weasley family--or any family, for that matter. Carol From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Wed Jan 14 22:30:05 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:05 -0000 Subject: Son of a vampire? (Re: Traditional Vampirism) In-Reply-To: <20040114200528.68277.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88737 Hi all, Forgive me if I join the funeral procession (we are talking about vampires, don't we?) without quoting any previous message. I just wanted to say that I read in a "History of vampires" (a French book that studies the phenomenon from its origins until its literary developments) that people thought that male vampires were able to procreate. The children who were supposed to be born from the union of a woman and a male vampire were not vampires or half- vampires themselves. They were humans, and people thought that they had the power to identify vampires. When they died, their corpse was cautiously buried, because people also believed that they would come back as vampires. It was a very complicated time Now why do I write that? Simply because I'd like to know: had anyone ever considered the possibility for Snape to be the son of a vampire? He would be human, but with "a vampire potential". That's why he looks so particular. That's why Voldemort could take an interest in him. No, no, no; not the interest Lestat takes in Louis. Voldemort wants to be immortal, and Snape could have been useful if he happened to be the son of a vampire. That possibility could be interesting also from a narrative point of view. Being the son of a vampire, Snape would be doomed to become a vampire himself when he died. Doomed, just like Harry seems to be now that we know for the blasted prophecy. Was Tom Riddle doomed to become a Dark Lord? After all, he shares some characteristics with Snape and Harry "Of doom and the way you deal with it" OK, I have to stop before I start writing fanfiction Amicalement, Iris From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Wed Jan 14 20:17:59 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:17:59 EST Subject: Parvati Patil (Was:Recurrences) Message-ID: <8c.139cd83.2d36fdf7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88738 Speaking of Parvati, I remember an exchange of words between her and...Pansy? about Neville: (Parvati says)"Leave him ALONE!" (Pansy, I think, says) "Never thought you'd like fat little crybabies, Parvati." (Italics mine) When has a Slytherin EVER called a Gryffindor by their first name? Just a thought. Fuzzlebub85 From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:44:25 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:44:25 -0000 Subject: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88739 > Carol: > I think Head Boy is an academic honor, and I agree that it probably > won't go to a Gryffindor because they won't have time to put in the > study time needed for top marks. My candidate, as I said in a > paragraph that you snipped, is Ernie MacMillan. It's time that > Hufflepuff received an honor or two, don't you think? But I agree that > Ron will be quidditch captain, and he'll deserve the honor. > > Carol, who doesn't believe that Ron will die in Book 6 or 7 and hopes > he'll find a way to become an auror What about the Mirror, when Ron sees himself as quiditch captain, prefect, and head boy; his brothers each did these, but they didnt do them all at once. Perhaps it is forshadowing that Ron will do all of these. Just a thought Andrew From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:56:08 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:56:08 -0000 Subject: James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88740 > Julie: > I have been looking for a connection between the deaths of James and > Lily and the continuous emphasis on Lily/Harry's eyes. Lily exelled > at charms. Can this be done through eyes, without wand? If so, > perhaps this is why her death is of more importance. She was in the > room with Harry, facing Voldemort. Any other thoughts? Maybe she was touching Harry. It makes sense to me. Lord Voldemort could not touch Harry, maybe she was killed while grabbing baby Harry's arm or something. That seems logical in the nature of the spell. Andrew From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 22:36:30 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:36:30 -0000 Subject: Hermione's perfections (was CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88741 Berit said > I think Hermione will run into trouble because of her firm belief in > her own brain, but I don't think daring to say the name "Voldemort" > will be it... > > Berit, who always fights relentlessy against superstition whether JKR has stated several times that if she wants to convey something as truth she will say it through Hermoine or Dumbledore. She shows particular fondness of Hermoine throughout most interviews. Hermoine is described as a young JKR, to an extent. Hermoine isn't always right, but why does she have to be set up to take a fall. She is also only wrong when she doesn't specifically state it as the answer, but as a possibility. Andrew From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 22:38:53 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:38:53 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88742 AmanitaMuscaria said > > If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated elves, > too? > > > Now, that is an interesting question. Along with whether goblins own > Gringotts or are just employed there, and who won the goblin wars? > Why wouldn't there be renegrade groups of elves somewhere? Perhaps > Harry needs to ask Dobby? > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria If the Goblins won the goblin wars, why would they be regulated in the wizarding laws. Wouldn't they be making the laws, and the wizards following? That is what has happened in ever war that has ever happened. Well, except Vietnam and sutch. Andrew From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Wed Jan 14 22:46:38 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:46:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Traditional Vampirism References: Message-ID: <002b01c3daf0$45596ac0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88743 {Pippin} (and earlier, Kneasy) My copy of QTTA remains AWOL, but according to the Lexicon, QTTA tells that the Transylvanian team has been known to conceal vampire bats under their robes {Anne} Found it: Page 40, American softback edition, 2001, of "Quidditch Through the Ages" "The final between Transylvania and Flanders has gone down in historyas the most violent of all time and many of the fouls then recorded had never been seen before--for instance, the transfiguration of a chaser into a polecat, the attempted decapitation of a Keeper with a broadsword, and the release, from under the robes of the Transylvanian captain, of a hundred blood-sucking vampire bats...." So now we cna honestly say that Rowling appears to have assocaited bats with Vamps in her world. Fair enough....*winks* Hand over the crow please...and the salsa...*grins* Thank you gentlemen... Anne From t.forch at mail.dk Wed Jan 14 22:52:34 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:52:34 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040114234757.00e44b30@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88744 At 21:44 14-01-04 +0000, you wrote: >What about the Mirror, when Ron sees himself as quiditch captain, >prefect, and head boy; his brothers each did these, but they didnt >do them all at once. Perhaps it is forshadowing that Ron will do all >of these. In which case, for consistency's sake (and IMO) Harry seeing himself surrounded by his family must mean that he'll die as that is is the only way this image can come true ... Or perhaps the Mirror, as Dumbledore /explicitly/ tells us " this mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth." /If/ (and that is, IMO, the "if" of something improbable) there is any foreshadowing in the Mirror of Erised, it would be, IMO, thematic foreshadowing. We might see Harry surrounded by family, but one he creates himself; not his parents, grandparents etc. And we may see Ron prove himself as the best of all the Weasley children, but not in the ways he (with the imagination of a first year student) imagined. /Troels From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 22:58:16 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:58:16 -0000 Subject: James and Lily, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88745 Carol wrote: > Also the Pensieve scene ("Snape's Worst Memory") in OoP shows Severus, > James, Sirius, and Remus all taking their DADA OWL together, meaning > that they were all in the same year. (I can't remember whether Peter > is also in that scene. It's possible that he and Lily were slightly > younger than the others.) Berit replies: Just a confirmation that Peter was the same age as the Marauders and Snape: Quote, from the exam scene: "Harry spotted him within seconds: a small, mousy-haired boy with a pointed nose. Wormtail looked anxious; he was chewing his fingernails..." (OoP p. 566 UK Ed). Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:16:05 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:16:05 -0000 Subject: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040114234757.00e44b30@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88746 Andrew asked: > > >What about the Mirror, when Ron sees himself as quiditch captain, > >prefect, and head boy; his brothers each did these, but they didnt > >do them all at once. Perhaps it is forshadowing that Ron will do all > >of these. > Then Troels noted: > In which case, for consistency's sake (and IMO) Harry seeing himself > surrounded by his family must mean that he'll die as that is is the > only way this image can come true ... > > Or perhaps the Mirror, as Dumbledore /explicitly/ tells us " this > mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth." > Constance Vigilance (me): Ah! My OTHER controversial theory, first described some time ago as The Mirror Lies. Thank you, Troels, for pointing out the canonical proof that The Mirror Lies: "... this mirror will give us neither ... truth ..." I pointed out back then that we know of only one case where the time for the results of the mirror have come and gone (Quirrell sees himself giving the stone to his master) and it was a lie. Ron sees himself winning the Quidditch Cup, which is true. We do not know if any of the other things he sees may come to pass, but then, Ron's history as a Seer may color what he sees in the mirror, so his experience may be atypical. The point that I made way back then that stirred up so much feeling was that I did not believe that the people that Harry saw in the mirror necessarily *ever* existed, just that Harry wanted them to. True, his mother and father existed and apparently resembled what Harry saw in the mirror, but the others could be complete fabrications, constructed with physical characteristics that Harry would attribute to members of his family. Bringing this post back to Troels' point that if Harry sees himself surrounded by dead family members it may mean that he will end up dead with them, I think we can prove nothing. Since The Mirror Lies, these people may not be dead or may not have ever lived, other than in Harry's hopeful imagination. We certainly cannot make any conclusions regarding Harry's mortality based on this. ~ Constance Vigilance, who knew she couldn't write a post without mentioning Quirrell at least once. From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:10:49 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:10:49 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88747 bboy_mn said > We know from the book that the > map has dead spots and that there are areas it doesn't cover. For > example, Peter/Scabber wasn't seen until Harry/Ron/Hermione exited > from Hagrid's cabin, and the Shrieking Shack in not on the map, you > can't see where the Whomping Willow tunnel comes out. > bboy_mn I am sure it seems obvious, but I have never thought of this before. While reading PoA, I wondered exactly why Scabbers/Peter would hide in Hagrid's hut. Obviously he knew from making the map that it was a dead spot, and would not make it possible for him to be seen on the map. Andrew (hoping this isn't common knowledge outside of me) From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 14 23:21:59 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:21:59 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88748 > Whizbang wrote: > When asked if he was ever a prefect, Sirius said that he and James were too often in detention and Remus was made prefect. Mandy here, The serving time in detention together is not an indication of the four friends being in the same house. Kids sent to detention will often serve it together regardless of house or age. A school will only, generally, have one teacher on detention duty on any given night and all kids; boys, girls, 1st years through 5th years of all houses will serve together, doing tasks like lines, homework, taking a test, etc. (Although, interestingly, not the 6th or 7th year kids, the 16-18 year olds. They are often treated differently, as they are considered practically adults and in many English schools they are kept as separate from the 12-15 year olds as much as possible.) Occasionally a child might be put into a separate detention with a specific task, if the punishment warrants it. For example Harry, Neville and Draco served detention with Hagrid in their first year because they were caught breaking the rules and McGonagall wanted to teach them a lesson in what could happen if they broke school rules outside. Hence detention with Hagrid, the grounds keeper, in the Forbidden Forest. I for one am a big believer in the four being in different houses. Remus in Ravenclaw, James in Gryffindor, Sirius in Slytherin and Peter in Hufflepuff. Or possible James in Slytherin with Sirius. I went to school with a house system and my circle of friends all came from different houses, although we spent as much time as possible together. The House Common Room is not the only place to hand out with friends in a boarding school. Mandy From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:03:42 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:03:42 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods, Half-Bloods, Pure Bloods, and Genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88749 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > I have a strange question that I know has been touched upon in some > ways by past posts. It has been 17 years since I had genetics so my > knowledge is very rusty. How is magic passed down genetically? > 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. > 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. > 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? > 4. Is magic genetic at all? Basic high school genetics here, which could account for all of this. There would have to be two chromosomes attached to this trait. One dominant magic charactaristic that would explain why a wizard almost always has a magical child. And one recessive to explain why there may suddenly appear a magical person in a totally muggle family. I'll attempt to draw a simple picture here for you. w=wizard recessive W=wizard dominant m=muggle recessive M=muggle dominant M w M 0 MM 0 Mw 0 w 0 Mw 0 ww 0 1 In one case,MM, the child will be totally muggle. 2 In the second case, Mw, the child will be a muggle, but will carry the wizard chromosome (which in a later generation, if paired with another recessive w gene, it will create on possible wizard) 3 In the last case, ww, the child is magical. 4 1/4 chances of a magical child. There may also be a magical dominant trait which when paired with a muggle dominant trait, it will over power the muggle trait. M w W 0 WM 0 Ww 0 w 0 Mw 0 ww 0 1 The case, WM, wizard overpowers muggle creating a wizard child with a muggle trait, which may evenutally lead to a squib in a later generation. 2 The case, Ww, leaves a magical child. Possible problem with squib in later generation, if paired with a M dominant trait. 3 The case, Mw, creates a muggle(squib), with a recessive wizard gene. 4 The last case, ww, creates a wizard. This seems highly simplified but is illustrated to the best of my ability. Perhaps there is a biology professor/teacher out there that can provide another explanation. Andrew From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:25:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:25:00 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: <008701c3da2b$b12d70e0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88750 > Taryn: > I just don't see why MWPP being mean in OotP=Slytherin. The idea that a Gryffindor couldn't be that nasty seems rather one-dimensional. (All Gryffindors are wonderful and nice! If you're mean, that MUST mean you're in Slytherin!) But maybe that's just me. *shrugs* Carol: I agree with you. I also think the advocates of MWPP being in Slytherin are going out of their way to reject the two pieces of canonical evidence we have: Harry's view of his father as a Gryffindor quidditch player and JKR's answer to which position James played for Gryffindor. Harry is often wrong, but there's no reason to assume that he's wrong this time (he's seen photos of his parents, which probably include photos of James in his quidditch robes), and JKR would have corrected the person asking the question if James were not in Gryffindor. We also know from interviews that Gryffindor is her favorite house and that Lily was "in Gryffindor, naturally." I think she would have given the same answer if asked about James. We also have Lupin in POA wanting Gryffindor to win the quidditch cup (and apologizing for favoring a particular house) and Sirius's reference in OoP to the juvenile Snape as being part of "a gang of Slytherins, almost all of whom became Death Eaters"--not the way he would refer to members of his own house, IMO. In addition, people keep referring to Sirius and James as being "cunning and ambitious," but were they? They were both intelligent (not the same thing as cunning, which implies craftiness and deceit), but the only deceit they engaged in was becoming animagi to be with Remus and sneaking around in the invisibility cloak--as Harry and Ron, quintessential Gryffindors--also do. Nor are they ambitious. Sirius is lazy and a bit spoiled (James caters to his whim to be entertained at Severus's expense) and James is egotistical and rich. Neither of them seems to take any thought for a future career, or for fame or glory or whatever motivates the truly ambitious students (Snape's DADA exam indicates a clear desire, to be somebody, to know as much as possible about the Dark Arts and to be recognized for that knowledge; Percy reads books about prefects who became famous. (Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing though too much can be dangerous, as I'm afraid Percy will demonstrate.) We see nothing of the sort with Sirius and James. Yes, they are "arrogant little berks" and their treatment of Snape in the Pensieve scene is inexcusable, as is Sirius's attempt to lure Snape into an encounter with a werewolf, but that has nothing to do with ambition. It's more like spite, which may be a Slytherin trait but is not a primary one. Both boys are adamantly opposed to the Dark Arts, which they (rightly or wrongly) associate with Slytherin. I think the Sorting Hat put them in Gryffindor not because they were good boys (they aren't) but because it saw their chief trait as a reckless daring that it interpreted as courage and therefore appropriate to Gryffindor. Another thought--McGonagall, the head of Gryffindor House, is the only professor to show up at 4 Privet Drive after she hears that the Potters have been killed. (I don't know who the head of Slytherin was at that time--certainly not Snape, who was only 22 and had only been a teacher for about a month--but whoever it was did not show up with McGonagall.) Her reaction when the rumor is confirmed shows a real affection for Lily and James, which she probably would not have felt had they not been in her own house. I very much doubt that she would have shed tears over the death of a Slytherin, even one who died fighting Voldemort, but she cries for James as well as Lily. Carol, who thinks that JKR likes Sirius and James and sees no reason why she wouldn't have put them (along with Lily) in her favorite house From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 14 18:31:12 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:31:12 -0000 Subject: James Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88751 Frost wrote: I don't buy that. Remember, both James and Lily have defied the Dark Lord three times. (or at least, that is how I understand it in the prophecy... I don't think it was just 3 times between the two) and while he may just see her as a mud-blood, mudbloods disgust him. Muggles are beneath his notice, but mudblood... well, why shouldn't he kill her just because she's a worthless mudblood. She stands in his way. Sawsan: I got an idea, but it is probably far fetched and probably already thought of, but maybe Voldemort is related to Lily through his muggle relatives? Her eyes and Harry's eyes have always been important, as JKR somewhere said that Harry's eyes were his weakness and such, plus that would almost explain why Harry has similar features as Tom Riddle, and it could even help explain why Voldie was not worried about killing Lily. I know that Neville could have been the one as well, but it would almost be star wars like to have Harry's relative to be the Bad guy. I mean he was almost a slytherin, like Tom Riddle, he is a parselmouth like him, he looks a bit like him, and has a lot in common with him. I didnt see anywhere in cannon that Harry didn't have any other relatives than the Dursleys, but even if that were true, Voldie is not quite living anyway :P Sawsan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:35:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:35:12 -0000 Subject: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88752 > Carol wrote: > > Isn't Head Boy an academic honor, based primarily on marks > (grades)? > > That's why James was made Head boy even though he wasn't a prefect. > > (I'm betting on Ernie McMillan as Head Boy, which will free both > Ron > > and Harry to concentrate on fighting Voldemort in Book 7--though if > > they want to be aurors, they'll also have to work on their NEWTs.) > Andrew responded: > With the twins out of the way, isnt it possible for Ron to really > open up and become into his own. He already started this at the end > of OOTP. Yes, but that was only an aside, not my primary purpose for writing this post. (I've got to stop adding remarks in parentheses!) Back to the original question: Isn't Head Boy primarily an academic honor? If so, it's unlikely that Harry or Ron will be Head Boy because neither of them makes high marks in every subject (or puts in eight to ten hours a day studying for exams like Ernie MacMillan)--even with the twins out of the way. Carol From rtb333 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 20:24:38 2004 From: rtb333 at yahoo.com (rtb333) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:24:38 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88753 Peter wrote: > I suppose the reason is one of the following: > 1) That phrase is like a "standard spell" between evil-doers. > 2) The phrase is only one of many which "opens" the map. > 3) That map doesn't react on a certain phrase, but on "key words", > perhaps "no good" and/or "swear". > 4) The Weasley twins had loads of time doing detention or imprisoned > in Filch's office - they tried out. > 5) The Marauders came around on Hogwarts grounds - so did the twins. > James & Co had sribbled it down somewhere, Fred & George saw it, > remembered it as a fine "spell" and tried it on the map. All of these are good ideas, but isn't it more likely that the map was just passed down through the generations. Upon the Marauders graduation there was no more use for it, so it was passed to a worthy student, and so on until it was passed to Fred and George. This makes snse to me as who is more deserving of a map like this then Fred and George. Rob From t.forch at mail.dk Wed Jan 14 23:48:38 2004 From: t.forch at mail.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:48:38 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Prefect (was: Chapter Discussion...) In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040114234757.00e44b30@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040115004144.00d46a30@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 88754 At 23:16 14-01-04 +0000, Susan Miller wrote: >Then Troels noted: > > > In which case, for consistency's sake (and IMO) Harry seeing himself > > surrounded by his family must mean that he'll die as that is is the > > only way this image can come true ... > > > > Or perhaps the Mirror, as Dumbledore /explicitly/ tells us " this > > mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth." > > > >Constance Vigilance (me): > >Ah! My OTHER controversial theory, first described some time ago as >The Mirror Lies. Thank you, Troels, for pointing out the canonical >proof that The Mirror Lies: You're welcome ;-) >Bringing this post back to Troels' point that if Harry sees himself >surrounded by dead family members it may mean that he will end up >dead with them, I just want to add that I don't believe this myself. My point was that /if/ Ron's image is claimed to be literal foreshadowing, then, by extension, so should Harry's be. Since the only way this could happen would be to have him die, that would be the logical consequence of the claim of literal foreshadowing, IMO. I believe that Dumbledore tells the truth about the Mirror - it shows us what we desire most, and I also believe that Harry retained some subconscious memories of his parents, which made him imagine them (the persons he desired most to be among) as they really looked. This might also be the case for some of the other characters, but I agree that it is unlikely that he could remember them all. As the Mirror not only doesn't /gives/ us truth (it doesn't say that it can't tell us a truth we already know), but also that it doesn't give us knowledge, I infer that the images of the people that Harry didn't retain a buried memory of, were actually misleading (otherwise Harry would have gained - i.e. been given - knowledge about the appearance of some of his family members). /Troels From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:49:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:49:24 -0000 Subject: James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > lizvega2: "Voldemort didn't > necessarily want to kill Lily anyway, "Stand aside silly girl"! > There's something wrong with this, it doesn't make sense." > > Voldemort was probably unconcerned by the actions of a 'mudblood' and did not feel the need to kill her, perhaps feeling that the power in Harry came from James the pureblood. > > Chris Also I think James probably tried to duel with Voldemort in defense of his family and Voldemort chose to AK him rather than merely stun him to get to Harry. As Lily was apparently trying to protect her child without fighting, Voldemort saw no need to kill her. But of course no mother in her right mind would have stepped aside and let LV murder her child, so she sacrificed herself willingly and directly. Even so, something *is* the matter here, as her death would leave Harry defenseless, which is why people on this list have suggested that something besides her death was involved, probably a charm to make the curse rebound on Voldemort if he killed her before he tried to kill Harry. It would seem that Lily was especially skilled at Charms as James was at Transfiguration--remember Mr. Olivander's remarks about their wands in SS/PS. Carol From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 14 23:49:42 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:49:42 -0000 Subject: Underage magic was: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88756 > Lisa wrote: > (snip) I thought all magic is banned from use outside of school grounds > Berit wrote: > (snip) how many times haven't we seen Harry w/friends and Draco w/friends jinxing and hexing each other on the train? remember Ron attempting to turn Scabbers yellow? And let's not forget Ginny cleaning up their robes with a charm after Neville squirted them all with Stinksap from his Mimbletonia plant. > To me it seems that the "no magic rule" does not apply to the Hogwarts express and Diagon Alley which are places within the magical world. Mandy here: On the use of magic on the Hogwarts Express, I think the Law will allow for a little flexibility toward the use of underage magic on the train. After all these children are retuning home from school where they have spent the past 9 months learning the use of magic and using/practicing it every day. It's going to take them a little time to stop. Although I would imagine that it would be a teachers or prefects responsibility to warn the kids to calm down before they disembark the train in London. There is no reference to children using magic in Diagon Ally in the books. Only the movie. I believe it is still illegal. The only type of magic that children can do outside of school is fly on brooms and travel by Floo Powder, although I would imagine, they are to be supervised by a parent or guardian or other adult. Also rules can and are often broken at home. Parents in the real world often allow children to drive cars on their property without a license. In other works I'm thinking that Molly and Arthur could, for example, let their kids play Quidditch unsupervised and no one would really care, until someone gets hurt of course. It seems to me that only wand magic is completely illegal for children and the MOM is always aware when a child breaks that law. Just what is done about it will depend on the child and it's parents. The Weasley's could get away with breaking the law once or twice before a warning would be given to Arthur privately, extending a courtesy to a Ministry employee. Also I would imagine that a family like the Malfoy's or the extinct Black family, have or had extensive magic over their properties that would hide the prying eyes of the MOM. Mandy From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 14 23:51:29 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:51:29 -0000 Subject: Favorite Series Lines (Was: Re: OOP:Favorite Lines...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88757 "meriaugust" wrote: I thought that the favorite lines from Order was a great thread (a lot of people seem to share my appreciation of Prof. McGonagall's insult skills), so I thought I'd ask if anyone had favorite lines/scenes from the whole series. Berit replies: My contribution; a few of my favourites from GoF (UK Ed): "Professor McGonagall stared deliberatedly around the class. 'The Yule Ball is of course a chance for us all to - er - let our hair down,' she said, in a disapproving voice. Lavender giggled harder than ever... Harry could see what was funny this time: Professor McGonagall, with her hair in a tight bun, looked as though she had never let her hair down in any sense." (p.337) McGonagall rocks :-) And a rare occasion where Harry actually is complementing Snape/recognizing Snape's brilliance (though he of course doesn't mean to): "Snape's black eyes were darting from the egg in Filch's arms to the map in Moody's hand, and Harry could tell he was putting two and two together like only Snape could..." (p. 411) Snape rules :-) One more on Snape: "'I just want to know what Snape did with his first chance, if he's on his second one,' said Harry grimly." (p. 418) Don't we all! And lastly, a truly beautiful passage easily forgotten since it precedes the more easily remembered, action-filled graveyard scene: "[said Harry:] 'Just take the cup!' 'No,' said Cedric. ... Cedric was serious. He was walking away from the sort of glory Hufflepuff house hadn't had in centuries [!]. 'Go on,' Cedric said. He looked as though this was costing him every ounce of resolution he had, but his face was set, his arms were folded, he seemed decided. Harry looked from Cedric to the Cup. For one shining moment, he saw himself emerging from the maze, holding it ... and then the picture faded, and he found himself staring at Cedric's shadowy, stubborn face. 'Both of us,' Harry said. 'What?' 'We'll take it at the same time. It's still a Hogwarts victory. We'll tie for it. ... 'You - you sure?' 'Yeah,' said Harry. 'Yeah ... we've helped each other out, haven't we? We both got here. Let's just take it together.'" (p.550-551) Marvelous. Cedric and Harry practising the type of chivalry and house unity we'll hopefully see at the end of book 7... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jan 14 23:48:16 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:48:16 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40066FF0.32706.534EC28@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88758 On 14 Jan 2004 at 23:35, justcarol67 wrote: > Back to the original question: Isn't Head Boy primarily an academic > honor? We simply don't know one way or the other. Some people have speculated that this might be the case, and it is possible - but most schools that have Head Boys and Head Girls do *not* treat it as primarily an academic honour. Hogwarts would be unusual if it did (of course, Hogwarts is unusual). A Head Boy or Girl would generally have a fairly good academic record, because it's often the type of position given based on overall achievement - but being good at several things, rather than brilliant at one. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:00:10 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:10 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88759 > Carol > The Evanses are Muggles (Lily is a Muggle-born witch), and Mark is > probably a Muggle-born wizard, so the MoM wouldn't know about them. > There's no reason that the MoM would know of Mark's family's existence or that they had a magical child. (The names of the magical children are written down in a book at Hogwarts, but the MoM wouldn't have access to the book.) Mandy here: Why would they not have access to the book? Especially as DD is the head of the Wizengamot as well as being the Headmaster of Hogwarts. It would seem that even if the communication between the two departments is bad, that DD himself would know. Of course he could be lying, and I don't trust DD further than I could throw him. Could he be keeping Mark a secret? Could JKR be feeding us a big RedHearing? ;-) Mandy From jakejensen at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 23:59:35 2004 From: jakejensen at hotmail.com (jakedjensen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:59:35 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy: > 1. Please state concisely your definition of a vampire. > 2. List, with canon references, where Snape actually corresponds > to these. I have to admit, I never really think of it in this way. As I posted previously, I think (1) there have been a lot of vampire refs in the books and (2) some point to Snape. But, in the spirit of it all, here goes.... Here's what we know about vampires from the canon: 1. Some live in the forest outside Hogwarts. Ergo, vampires must like some connection with the forest (maybe it's just a good place to eat or hide or live...something). 2. Quirrell believes that garlic scares them away (or Fred and George do, at very least). 3. There are vampire bats. It is not clear if these are vampires turned into bats or just vampire bats (As you have pointed out). Snape actually corresponds to these in the canon: 1. In SS/PS, Snape meets Quirrell in the woods. Seems a bit odd. In OoTP, Snape is the one sent to search the forest for Harry and the gang. 2. We don't know if garlic actually does scare away vampires and we don't know if Quirrell actually had any garlic on his body or in his classroom. We do know that Snape is on to Quirrell, though. So, if he did have garlic on him it would make sense. 3. Snape is described several times throughout the books as a bat (see #35299 for more details on this). Here is the question I think of, what are some things that happen in the books that point toward Snape being a vampire? 1. Snape doesn't seem to mind the coldness of his office in CoS (as I pointed out in the post that started this all again). If vampires are undead in JKRs world, then this would make sense. Undead creatures don't feel temp. (or much else for that matter). 2. Snape receives medical treatment for Filch in PS/SS. Filch is a pretty dark individual himself. This seems strange. At the time, we think it is because he is trying to hide the fact he is going for the stone. Now we know that is not true. So why Filch? Kneasy pointed out that Filch might be an igor (which I think is quite funny). Regardless, if he is undead, he might want to avoid Pompy (or she might find out). It's not to say that Pompy couldn't treat him (in OoTP, werewolves are treated in a traditional WW hospital), but he might want to avoid her. 3. Vampires sometimes have pointy teeth or retractable fangs. Snapes teeth (all yellow and gross) are mentioned numerous times. Will the person who posted a great breakdown of this chime in? Can't remember who it was. I'll keep searching the archive. 4. In many myths, vampires and werewolves hate each other (for a recent rehash, see Underworld...it's okay). The only DADA that Snape complains to DD about (in the book) is Lupin (who is a vampire). This, despite the fact that the other DADAs are Quirrell (possessed by LV), Gilderoy (turns out to be a baddy), Moody (a morphed DE), and the evil beast that is Umbridge. 5. The exchange between Lupin and Snape in PoA (see my previous post for more about this) ends with Lupin poorly dismissing Snape's attack on the map and asking Harry if he can talk about the vampire essay he assigned. Snape, who should be ragging on Lupin's poor excuse, instead remains quiet. When the get in the hall, they do not talk about a vampire essay. In OoTP, Umbridge rehashes the curr. for Lupin's year and does not mention vampires (but she does mention everything else). More importantly, vampires are quite a bit more advanced than the rest of the monsters covered by Lupin in year three. To me, this is the best canon supporting Snape being a vampire. So, that, to me is what links Snape to the vampire (if you will). Could it LV be the vampire? Could be. Could noone be a vampire. Sure. But right there in the canon is an arrow that does point at Snape. Could it be a red herring? Sure. I am sure I have left a great deal out. Others can chime in where I have missed. Alot of this I am retyping from a post I put up a couple days ago. Jake From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:10:10 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:10:10 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88761 > Carol: > I agree with you. I also think the advocates of MWPP being in > Slytherin are going out of their way to reject the two pieces of > canonical evidence we have: Harry's view of his father as a Gryffindor > quidditch player and JKR's answer to which position James played for > Gryffindor. Harry is often wrong, but there's no reason to assume that > he's wrong this time (he's seen photos of his parents, which probably > include photos of James in his quidditch robes), and JKR would have > corrected the person asking the question if James were not in > Gryffindor. We also know from interviews that Gryffindor is her > favorite house and that Lily was "in Gryffindor, naturally." I think > she would have given the same answer if asked about James. Marianne, here; Just to play devil's advocate - Harry assumes that James the Quidditch player was in Gryffindor. He has identified with his father so strongly over the years that he will naturally assume he, like many of his fellow students, has followed his father into the same house. Whether or not any of his photos show James garbed in Quidditch robes is not something we've been privy to. As far as the JKR quote goes, the questioner asked whether James, like Harry played Seeker for Gryffindor. JKR promptly answered the main thrust of the question, which was about the position played. "No, he was a Chaser." The reason JKR may not have either corrected or reiterated the questioner's assumption that James was in Gryffindor could be that he wasn't, and she did not choose to reveal that at the time. Carol: > We also have Lupin in POA wanting Gryffindor to win the quidditch cup > (and apologizing for favoring a particular house) and Sirius's > reference in OoP to the juvenile Snape as being part of "a gang of > Slytherins, almost all of whom became Death Eaters"--not the > way he would refer to members of his own house, IMO. Marianne, again: The Lupin thing is more problematic. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was simply being supportive of Harry. As far as "the gang of Slytherins" - I can imagine Sirius referring to members of his own house that way, especially if he hated being in that house and felt just as out of place there as he did within his own family. However, I think this would only work if Sirius' estrangement from his family and all they held important started after he entered Hogwarts. If he was already starting to feel alienated from his family and pure-blood society before being sorted, I'd think the chances were good that he'd not have been sorted into Slytherin. But, we don't yet know for sure. Carol: > In addition, people keep referring to Sirius and James as being > "cunning and ambitious," but were they? They were both intelligent > (not the same thing as cunning, which implies craftiness and deceit), > but the only deceit they engaged in was becoming animagi to be with > Remus and sneaking around in the invisibility cloak--as Harry and Ron, > quintessential Gryffindors--also do. Nor are they ambitious. Sirius is > lazy and a bit spoiled (James caters to his whim to be entertained at > Severus's expense) and James is egotistical and rich. Neither of them > seems to take any thought for a future career, or for fame or glory or > whatever motivates the truly ambitious students (Snape's DADA exam > indicates a clear desire, to be somebody, to know as much as possible > about the Dark Arts and to be recognized for that knowledge; Marianne again: I don't know that you can say, from the little we've seen of James and Sirius as students that they were not ambitious or that they had no thoughts of the future. We saw them as students for one scene. And, while they certainly showed deplorable behavior I'm not sure that this negates any particular Slytherin-ish qualities they may have had. Carol: Both boys are adamantly > opposed to the Dark Arts, which they (rightly or wrongly) associate > with Slytherin. I think the Sorting Hat put them in Gryffindor not > because they were good boys (they aren't) but because it saw their > chief trait as a reckless daring that it interpreted as courage and > therefore appropriate to Gryffindor. Marianne: I wonder at what point Slytherin became the "House of the Dark Arts?" Could it be that there was always a thread of dark magic among *some* of the people sorted within that house, but it only became more prominent through the rising influence of those who sought to force their views on the rest of the WW? What I'm thinking here is, what it, at the time of MWPP, there was a struggle for the soul of Slytherin? Some Slytherin kids were those who became DEs and others were those who hated the dark arts, but were, perhaps, in the minority, and eventually fewer people who opposed the dark arts ended up in Slytherin. Did that make any sense? Carol: > Another thought--McGonagall, the head of Gryffindor House, is the only > professor to show up at 4 Privet Drive after she hears that the > Potters have been killed. (I don't know who the head of Slytherin was > at that time--certainly not Snape, who was only 22 and had only been a > teacher for about a month--but whoever it was did not show up with > McGonagall.) Her reaction when the rumor is confirmed shows a real > affection for Lily and James, which she probably would not have felt > had they not been in her own house. I very much doubt that she would > have shed tears over the death of a Slytherin, even one who died > fighting Voldemort, but she cries for James as well as Lily. Marianne: Oh, come on, that Minnie is a softie underneath her stern exterior! If she worked with anyone throughout the struggle against Voldemort, and if they died fighting him, I think she might have shed a tear for them. Anyway, I'm not completely wed to this idea of MWPP as Slyths. Really. I'm not. I guess I see it as one of those little twists that would be somewhat unexpected, and which would also surprise the pants off Harry. > Carol, who thinks that JKR likes Sirius and James and sees no reason > why she wouldn't have put them (along with Lily) in her favorite house Marianne, who thinks JKR likes Sirius and James, too, but who thinks JKR might have saved membership in Gryffindor for the characters she LOVES - Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore. From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:11:28 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:11:28 -0000 Subject: James and Lily, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88762 > Carol wrote: > ....Lily may have been even younger. I don't think we have any canonical evidence to indicate that she was in the same year as James. (Or is she wearing a Prefect badge in that scene?) Mandy here: I believe they were in the same year as James and Lily were Head boy and Girl together. So unless she was moved ahead a year. Or, it's occuring to me as I write this, that they could have been Head boy and girl in different years??? Can anyone remember the quote about James and Lily both being Heads? And was it mentioned they were in the same year? Mandy From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:14:52 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:14:52 -0000 Subject: James and Lilly, were how old, exactly? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88763 > Arya wrote: > (Who is annoyed when she sees the pic of J/L/H in the photo > album from the films because they made James and Lily look much, much older than they should) Mandy here: Agreed, but to put your mind at rest in film 3 they are supposed to look a lot younger and trender accoring to the times they lived, late 70's early 80's. Should be interesting. But this is very off topic and I'll here it from the Elves! Mandy From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:20:38 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:20:38 -0000 Subject: time turner question - PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88764 > Allie wrote: > Okay, I know that this must have been discussed when PoA > came out, but I am having trouble with the archive search... > > When Harry, Hermione, and Sirius collapse fending off the > dementors around the lake, and Harry sees someone on the > opposite shore fire off a Patronus and chase the dementors > away, how could it be that he was seeing himself??? He and > Hermione HAD TO survive that attack without a "Harry from the > future," because if they didn't survive it, there would be no "Harry > from the future" to save them. (I have this same issue with > Terminator 2... how can you get the idea for a microchip from the > microchip that you haven't invented yet? But I digress...) Since > he had to go through that experience before he and Hermione > went back in time... who created the Patronus the first time? > Mandy here, What you are talking about is called a Paradox and occurs in every story, book/movie about Time Travel. It is the main argument some scientist make about why Time Travel will always be impossible. Check out some Time Travel website for an explanation because it is way beyond my comprehension. ;-) Best not to think too much about it. Mandy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 00:24:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:24:47 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88765 -Carol wrote: (She > > has also mentioned at least once that she hasn't entirely rejected > the > > possibility of an eighth Harry Potter book, but in her original > vision > > the series ended with the seventh book because Harry's Hogwarts > career > > will end at that point.) > Andrew: > There is a quote that I read which definately leaves the possibility > of more books open. The main reason for her saying it would end at > seven is that she already had the entire idea worked out. She didn't > have every book written, but she did have an idea of what she wanted > to happen. If anyone finds the quote that left open the idea for an > 8th book , can they please post it becuase I can not seem to find it > again. I think it's the same one I had in mind: JKR: Um, at the moment, I definitely think I'm going to stop at seven, and I have to say, that will be really heartbreaking. Um, the only reason you'll ever see an eight Harry Potter book is if I really, in ten years time, burn to do another one. But at the moment, I think that's unlikely. But I try never to say never about anything, cause the moment I say "I will never," I do it next month. So, I just ? but I think not. I think I'll stop at seven. It's from the October 20, 1999, Press Club interview transcript, which can be found at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/1999/1099-pressclubt= ransc.html Carol From oppen at mycns.net Wed Jan 14 19:01:11 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:01:11 -0600 Subject: Ron as a prefect Message-ID: <000401c3daff$064051a0$5a560043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 88766 I think that a lot of Ron's problems in his role as a prefect came from the fact that he was in the same house as, and the younger sibling of, Gred-and-Forge Weasley. Firstly---they're seventh-years while he's a fifth-year. At age 17 or 18, I'd probably have resented taking orders and sauce from a kid several years younger than I was, no matter what his title might be. Second---they're his older brothers, and older brothers have a hard time taking their younger siblings completely seriously. Even if Ron had been Quidditch Captain as well as a prefect, to them he'd still be "ickle Ronniekins," whose nose they've seen their Mum wiping. (Not that my own experience as an older brother has anything to do with this, mind you...*innocent look*) AFAICR, other than dealing with Gred-and-Forge, Ron seemed to be doing all right as a prefect. Had I been in his boots, I might have asked the _seventh_-year prefects (if such existed---did they? Or were Ron and Hermione the only prefects around? The older ones might have already left H'warts, having taken their OWLS and gotten job offers) to be the ones to deal with the Twins. Gred-and-Forge have problems enough acceding to the demands of Authority Figures, but might be more amenable to such things if the orders are coming from someone they at least see more-or-less as an equal, rather than a jumped-up younger sibling. Not to mention, a seventh-year is their own size, and probably skilled enough with magic to deal with them that way if needs be. From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:33:54 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:33:54 -0000 Subject: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88767 > Carol > Back to the original question: Isn't Head Boy primarily an academic > honor? If so, it's unlikely that Harry or Ron will be Head Boy because > neither of them makes high marks in every subject (or puts in eight to > ten hours a day studying for exams like Ernie MacMillan)--even with > the twins out of the way. Mandy here: No it is not an academic honor. It is very different from the American Valedictorian. It has to do with leadership primarily with sport achievement, grades, popularity coming after, not in that order. So Hermione is most definitely Head Girl material so is Harry. Ron is not now, but might become a candidate later, he still has a year to prove himself a leader. Personally I think he would make a good Head Boy if he learns to not only lead but to listen, as well. Ron is often oblivious to those around him including his good friend and crush, Hermione. A common trait of being the youngest, and of 5 older brothers as well! He is used to fending for only for himself with his bother taking care of themselves. Ron has never had to think too much or worry about others until he hit Hogwarts. Once he become sympathetic to the needs of others, he'll be a great Head boy. Mandy From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:44:20 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:44:20 -0000 Subject: Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88768 Alright, I've just finished my second read thru of all five books. Does anyone know exactly what the word 'vanquish' means? Anyway, here it is. Harry will overcome (The Prophesy never says that the one with the power will kill the dark lord, it doesn't)Voldemort by uniting the entire magical community, and possibly muggles alike, against him. After the uniting, I don't know. But, unifications was a strong theme in OOP- anyone remember the sorting hats song??? Think about everyone in Harry's life. Hagrid- half giant, and already went on mission to recruit them, but he was unsuccessful Lupin- Werewolf, Hermione- Muggle born Dobby- COS and GOF proved just how powerful elves are Ron- Pure blood, and poor, with a muggle loving father Fierenz- Centaur, on the outs with the others, but who knows Trelawney- flaky as she is, but she has performed two very real predictions The Dursleys- Ah, who needs'em, never mind Merpeople- They all thought Harry was a hero based on his behavior in the lake Harry's famous, and now that the ministry's stopped copping out, everyone believes, we assume, Harry's story. And, now lets think of all the other creatures that Harry has come into contact with, who might be useful later Three headed dog, whatever happened to Fluffy anyway? Basilisk Aragog Hippogriffs Blast ended skrewts Grawp! I hope his face is ok Dragons My theory isn't complete, it just started coming to me when I was re- reading. It just seemed to me, that Jo has gone to great lengths to place all of these different magical creatures (I'm including Humans) around Harry. I still don't think that Harry will be able to kill Voldemort, as DD said in OOP-The only one he ever feared- "There are much worse things than death, indeed your failure to believe that has always been your greatest weakness." In Volde's position, what would be worse than death? He's already been deprived of a body, and he managed to get around that, what's next? And, notice this: This statement came right after Harry watched Sirius die, as though Jo was trying to reiterate the point. Death is but the 'next great adventure'-PS From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 15 00:40:03 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:40:03 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88769 Jake wrote: 5. The exchange between Lupin and Snape in PoA (see my previous post for more about this) ends with Lupin poorly dismissing Snape's attack on the map and asking Harry if he can talk about the vampire essay he assigned. Snape, who should be ragging on Lupin's poor excuse, instead remains quiet. When the get in the hall, they do not talk about a vampire essay. In OoTP, Umbridge rehashes the curr. for Lupin's year and does not mention vampires (but she does mention everything else). More importantly, vampires are quite a bit more advanced than the rest of the monsters covered by Lupin in year three. To me, this is the best canon supporting Snape being a vampire. Berit replies: I don't have any opinion as to whether Snape is a vampire or not, but thought I'd point out an interesting canonical fact about the vampire essay: Lupin did really assign it even though Umbridge left it out; it wasn't just something Lupin said to shut Snape up: Quote: "...'I was going to go to the library and do that vampire essay for Lupin -' 'I'll come with you!' said Neville brightly. 'I haven't done it either!' 'Er - hang on - yeah, I forgot, I finished it last night!' 'Brilliant, you can help me!' said Neville, his round face anxious. 'I don't understand that thing about the garlic and all - do they have to eat it, or -' Neville broke off with a small gasp, looking over Harry's shoulder. It was Snape. Neville took a quick step behind Harry. 'And what are you two doing here?' said Snape, coming to a halt and looking from one to the other. 'An odd place to meet -' To Harry's immense disquiet, Snape's black eyes flicked to the doorways on either side of them, and then to the one-eyed witch. 'We're not - meeting here,' said Harry. 'We just - met here.' 'Indeed?' said Snape. You have a habit of turning up in unexpected places, Potter, and you are rarely there for no reason ... I suggest the pair of you return to the Gryffindor Tower, where you belong.' Harry and Neville set off without another word. As they turned the corner, Harry looked back. Snape was running one of his hands over the one-eyed witch's head, examining her closely." (PoA p. 204 UK Ed). So the vampire essay is "real". And just one more thought: Interesting how indifferent Snape seems to be at their vampire conversation (it's likely he overheard at least some of what they were talking about since he came right up to them before Neville discovered he was there). Snape not being bothered about their vampire essay is strenghtened by the fact that he proceeds to examine the one-eyed witch statue when they leave, seemingly more interested in what Harry was doing there than what Harry and Neville had been talking about... But on the other hand; pro Vampire!Snapists will probably see this passage as evidence that Snape is a vampire, the way Rowling makes him turn up just as Neville and Harry are talking about vampires... :-) Well, that's all I have to say on vampire essays :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 23:53:12 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:53:12 -0000 Subject: James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88770 > Sawsan: > I got an idea, but it is probably far fetched and probably > already thought of, but maybe Voldemort is related to Lily > through his muggle relatives? <> > I didn't see anywhere in cannon that Harry didn't have any other > relatives than the Dursleys, but even if that were true, Voldie is > not quite living anyway :P Frost: I can just see it now. "Oh, gee, Uncle Voldemort! Can I live with you? The Dursleys are just TERRIBLE." But I agree. That would be far too "Star wars." Actually, that would be Far to "Dune"-ish, since Star Wars stole that from Dune (along with half the plot). But I digress. Anyhow, I was lead to believe that the Parseltongue was a power Harry "inherited" from Voldemort's failed attempt to kill him, and the connection it forged between Harry and LV. Though, if it was from the Muggle side, at least that would explain how Voldie is Slytherin's last descendant and Harry isn't. But then again, LV HATED his Muggle side, so why would that give him any sympathy/whatever-it-was-that-he-expressed- by-trying-to-just-push-her-aside towards Lily. Oh, and another question. What is it that Lily and James did to defy LV? Maybe that had something to do with it? I mean, though they defied him three times (which, as we can see with Harry's experiences truly aggravates the Dark Lord) why is it that they did not have to go into hiding until Harry was born/prophesied? Frost From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 00:43:11 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:43:11 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88771 Neri wrote: It is even possible that DD himself sent Ron, the young version of himself, to the past in order to become DD and carry out this special mission. OK, this might be just a tiny bit confusing, but it can be made to work using WDID without any inconsistency. Only it does not change what Ron knows. He knows about many events that are going to happen and he can't prevent them, he just has to sit and watch them as they happen. IMHO this part of the scenario really sucks, but no account for personal tastes. vmonte responds: I like the idea of Ron having a special mission but I'm not sure I understand the theory that you are allowed to go back in time as long as you do not change anything? Why go back in the first place unless you want to change something? vivian From aiiesdelamour at aol.com Wed Jan 14 23:42:23 2004 From: aiiesdelamour at aol.com (aiiesdelamour at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:42:23 EST Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88772 *fingers crossed that the formatting will work before replying!* Mandy wrote: >I for one am a big believer in the four being in different houses. >Remus in Ravenclaw, James in Gryffindor, Sirius in Slytherin and >Peter in Hufflepuff. Or possible James in Slytherin with Sirius. (Snipped.) That is one of the theories I have difficulty buying into, for several reasons. For one, Remus. If he is lying about being a werewolf and "vanishing" once a month, then three other boys from separate houses are far less likely to notice his absence than boys that he shares a dormitory (and thus a house) with. Unless it's exaggerated that Sirius, James, and Peter simply figured it out on their own -- a denial on Remus's part of having actually told them? -- I have trouble seeing them being able to do so. That also raises the question of why Remus's actual dormmates managed to arguably be kept in the dark about his lycanthropy -- and why the dormmates of Sirius, James, and Peter didn't tattle over them sneaking out (I'd imagine someone noticed, unless Snape is the only one, and perhaps noticed Sirius sneaking out). We've seen, of course, that the Gryffindors share classes with other houses -- Potions and Care of Magical Creatures and Flying (in first year, anyway) with Slytherin, Herbology with Hufflepuff -- and we can probably assume they share something with Ravenclaw as well. Therefore, they could have interaction with each other -- but the likelihood of them banding together that way, in my humble opinion, is very slim. In the books, we're fairly isolated to Harry's point of view on things, but it's obvious he's fairly isolated -- that is, keeping to his own house, associating with his housemates, etc. It doesn't mean he never interacts with anyone from the other houses, but you always hear about Hufflepuffs sitting around with Hufflepuffs, Slytherins hanging out together, etc. Also, given the competetive nature of things, unless they're much different in the MWPP timeline, I just think being in four different houses would make things very difficult. -- Crystal [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 00:52:23 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:52:23 -0000 Subject: fudge the 3rd power? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88773 > Chris wrote: > Something that struck me as I went though OOP for the 100th time was that Fudge has all that Voldemort wants. He has: > -Considerable power over the WW > -Is apparently breeding horrible creatures > -Can overrule the greatest wizard in modern times > -Controls the press to a degree that a public that fawned over Harry in book 1 thinks he's lost it in book 5. > -Uses the Sirus Black escape as a chance to streanthen his power over the law enforcement section of the WW > -Is in contact with the muggle PM and very likerly the only such channel. He has enough influence with the muggle PM to get him to have the Muggle Police looking for Sirus without much evidence. > I think that Fudge is an 'evil overlord' in his own right. Mandy here: Interesting but I disagree because Fudge is a pawn of other more powerful Wizards. Namely Mr. Lucius Malfoy, and through Lucius, now Voldemort himself. Lucius has been controlling Fudge and the Ministry for years. Paving the way for his own rise to power. Unfortunately for Lucius, Voldemort is back and he, Lucius, has to deal with decidedly difficult position of pacifying the Dark Lord and proving he really didn't turn his back on him 15 years ago. LV on their other hand needs to control the Ministry or destroy it to win. He'll attempt to do one or the other in the next 2 books. Which means that Fudge will either continue as Minister Of Magic under LV control or he'll be out on his backside. Either is a quite possible outcome of the circumstances at the end of OotP. Mandy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 00:55:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:55:15 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning as a Cure-All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88774 "Robert Jones" wrote: > All in all, if time travel becomes an essential part of the final > events in the series, I will feel cheated. We will have been > wasting time reading and thinking about an unsatisfying sci fi novel. I agree that time travel (like Snape as vampire) is an entirely unnecessary plot device. (We had enough of the Time Turner in PoA, thanks). My question is the same one I asked about Snape as Vampire: Why do the advocates of the theory think it's necessary? ("I like time travel and think it would be neat to include it" won't do.) Am I right that the time travel, R=DD advocates are trying to account for Dumbledore's seeming omniscience (ability to see under invisibility cloaks, etc.)? If so, I would argue that we can find the answer simply in the fact that Dumbledore is the greatest wizard of the age, who can become invisible without an invisibility cloak (mirror of Erised scene in SS/PS) and travel instantly from Hogwarts to, say, the MoM without apparating (which can't be done from Hogwarts), as he does when he escapes Fudge's intended arrest and again, apparently, when he shows up with Fawkes in the MoM. Neither ability (invisibility or instant self-transport without apparating) can be accounted for by time travel or Dumbledore being Ron. So, again, to the DD=Ron advocates: Why do you think this theory is necessary? And to the opponents of the theory: What alternatives to Dumbledore being Ron can you present to account for his seeming omniscience? (I've already presented my own theory--superior wizardry or sorcery.) And an unrelated question that I'll throw in because it's not worthy of its own post: The narrator (or one of the Weasleys?) keeps referring to Perkins, the wizard who works with Arthur in the Muggle Artifacts office, as an "old warlock." No other character, IIRC, is referred to by that term. I always thought a warlock was just a male witch, but JKR seems to use "wizard" in that sense. So what is a warlock by JKR's definition and how is he different from other wizards? Thanks for any information or ideas on any of these three questions. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 01:04:42 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:04:42 -0000 Subject: The Map and how did Fred and George get it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88775 vmonte responds: Maybe Dumbledore gave the map to Fred and George just like he gave Harry the invisibility cloak. DD seems to like to pass gifts to students. These gifts are then later used to service DD and or the Order in some way. vivian From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 15 01:11:24 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:11:24 -0000 Subject: The Map and how did Fred and George get it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88776 vmonte wrote: > > Maybe Dumbledore gave the map to Fred and George just like he gave > Harry the invisibility cloak. DD seems to like to pass gifts to > students. These gifts are then later used to service DD and or the > Order in some way. > Berit replies: May I turn your attention to Geoff's excellent post, #88728, where he quotes canon, telling exactly where Fred and George got the map. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 01:20:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:20:18 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtb333" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" > wrote: > > I know we have discussed the Map from all angles but here is what > was > > wondering the other day: > > > > How did Fred and George figure out how to use the map?? I mean how > > did they randomly figure out "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" > > were the correct words to open the map?? > > > > Tonya > > I thought about that for a while and I couldn't figure it out. Only > the Marauders knew how to use it. There is something else to think > about. In the first book, it says that Ron got Scabbers from Percy. > Pettegrew would know how to use the map, so did he tell the twins how > to use it. It is also funny(not ha-ha funny) that Percy is power > hungary and some seem to think he is evil and he was the original > owner of Scabbers. Quite interesting. Do you have any thoughts on > this coincidence? > > Rob The map tells Harry what to do (it shows the little dot marked Harry Potter tapping with his wand on the witch's hump). Clearly MWPP (the teenage selves preserved in the map) recognize him as a kindred spirit, whether or not they figure out that he's James's son. Also, Fred and George found the map in Filch's office, so they must have known that it had some secret they wanted to discover. MWPP probably recognized them as mischief makers and told them how to use it, just as it later told Harry. OTOH, they recognized Snape as an enemy (a teacher) and ignored his orders ("reveal your secret!") until he gave his name, at which point they insulted him. (Arrogant little berks!) I don't think it has anything to do with Scabbers. IMO, if Percy the Prefect had found the map, they would have recognized him as an enemy, too, kid or no kid. Carol From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 01:26:20 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:26:20 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88778 > Crystal > That is one of the theories I have difficulty buying into, for >several reasons. For one,Remus. If he is lying about being a >werewolf and "vanishing" once a month, then three >other boys from >separate houses are far less likely to notice his absence than boys >that >he shares a dormitory (and thus a house) with. Unless it's >exaggerated that Sirius, >James, and Peter simply figured it out >on their own -- a denial on Remus's part of having actually >told >them? -- I have trouble >seeing them being able to do so. Mandy here: But his `friends' would notice. So, for that matter, so would his roommates. So I imagine precautions would have been taken by Remus and the faculty. Remus must have had an excuse for his monthly departure, he had to have done or the whole school would have noticed. So lets imagine he had some sort of excuse that enabled him to leave school for 2 days once a month, every month. I'm thinking something like he had a family member in hospital that he `visited.' DD and all the teachers would back him up on this and support the lie, squashing any rumor etc. Enabling Remus to leave school and cavort in the Forbidden Forest. As for the other three, they couldn't disappear for the entire 2 days that the moon is full. James, Sirius and Peter would have left at night only, and only for a short period of time. A couple of hours at the most. Possible staying out all night once every couple of months. Or, maybe, one of them would stay out all night while the other two went back to bed, taking it in turns to be with Werewolf/Remus. So my point is that Remus being absent for 2 days a month (not just 2 nights) every one would notice. But only his friends, Sirius, Peter and James and his enemies, Severus would care, and wonder, and begin to question. So in my opinion it doesn't matter what house any of them were in, if they were true friends of Remus, which they were, they would have `found out' about his condition and wanted to help him. > Crystal wrote: > That also raises the question of why Remus' actual dormmates managed to arguably >be kept in the dark about his lycanthropy -- and why the dormmates of Sirius, James, >and Peter didn't tattle over them sneaking out (I'd imagine someone noticed, unless >Snape is the only one, and perhaps noticed Sirius sneaking out). Mandy again: Yes, I agree what about the roommates? Sirius, James and Peter were running a risk for being discovered by their roommates. Why weren't any of them suspicious? Well perhaps they were. Remember James and Sirius ruled that school and I'm certain if a roommate noticed something they weren't supposed to notice and the James and Sirius wanted it forgotten....it was forgotten, quickly. If any one pushed the issue, like Severus did, serious consequences resulted. Don't forget Severus was nearly led to his death by Sirius Black for being nosy and `pushing' the issue. That would scare me into being quite. Finally the fact that Severus did notice leads me to believe that one of them must have been in Slytherin with Snape. Mandy From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 01:53:39 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:53:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Traditional Vampirism References: Message-ID: <008801c3db0a$65e26e80$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88779 Anyway to steer this back to the topic, there is no question in my mind that the Bela Lugosi interpretation of Stoker's Dracula has influenced the appearance of Snape; look at Rowling's picture of him. It's in the photos section of this group in the Harry Potter and Me folder {Anne} I'll answer the Lilith part later, since I'm still looking at reference material and it'll take a bit for me to type it out ...but for now, I will address this part of the post...I went and checked out Snape....and honestly, I *can't* see it....Bela and Snape look nothing alike--other then they're both wearing black, and Rowling has (convieniently for pro-Snape-as-a-vamp folks *winks*) placed Severus in a decidedly 'Vamp-like' pose...I DO have several pictures of Bela, one of which I have saved as a file, so that I can show you what I mean...but I'm not terribly sure where to send the pic to... Anyway, my point is that when I set the pics side by side in my corel veiwer...they really do NOT look at all alike-even the way Severus is hunched up is not really one of Bela's 'poses' he affected, except maybe as Dracula's last gasp before getting torched by the sun....as for the flowing cloak, etc....that's par and parcel for many a 'dark' character, from The Shadow, spies, vampires, Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde, etc...it's not really a 'look' exclusive to vamps (and in Sev's case it seems to be missing a lot of the actual costume that Bela wore in each of the Dracula movies...). From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:12:17 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:12:17 -0000 Subject: McGonagall, Figg, and Tartans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: < > pitaprh (I think--unsigned post): > > It has been wondered if McGonagall is not related to Ms. Figg - the > > cats and the tartan references. Maybe she was visiting Ms. Figg when > > the events happened and so she was there looking for Dumbledore. > > That would give some explanation as to why he didn't know she was > > going to be there but also wasn't surprised when she was. > > Carol: > I think the tartan slippers are an important clue, and being related > to Professor McGonagall would explain why Mrs. Figg is Harry's > protector and a member of the Order even though she's a Squib. But > maybe the slippers are just a red herring since Filch at one point > wears a tartan scarf (CoS 125, Am. ed.) and there's no reason to > suspect that he's a relative of McGonagall's. Or is there? As someone > else pointed out, he has the same initials as Arabella Figg, so maybe > there's a McGonagall/Filch connection, too. :-) Frost: Ok, as a member of a Scottish clan I have to protest. Just because you wear a tartan doesn't mean you are related. Just go to any Highland festival, and you'll see that. There are over 100 Clans and varying tartans between them. (At least 4 versions of MacDonald to boot.) So unless she describes the tartin, and they match, the likeliness of them being related is still the same if they just happened to have the same color eyes, or wore the same color dress. Anyhow, I'm trying to find McGonagall on the clan registries, and it's not coming up. Moody came up under Clan Stewart, and MacNair came up under Clan Macpherson and Clan Macnaught. Hmmm... Nope not finding MacGonagall (Most sights insert the "a" into "Mc" whether you want it there or not. :p *sighs*) Anyhow, it would be interesting to see if Mrs. Figg is related to a Phoenix member and tnot to mention would make a lot of sense as to how she got to be one her self, but trying to set it solely on the basis of "they both wear tartans" is a little slim. Frost From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Thu Jan 15 02:57:56 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Jami DeQuardo) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:57:56 -0600 Subject: Wizard Genetics In-Reply-To: <1074126074.6420.85220.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <9EA77168-4706-11D8-B67B-0050E420A018@waisman.wisc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 88781 > "drjuliehoward" wrote: >> How is magic passed down genetically? >> 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. >> 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. >> 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? >> 4. Is magic genetic at all? Andrew" replied: > Basic high school genetics here, which could account for all of > this. There would have to be two chromosomes attached to this trait. > One dominant magic charactaristic that would explain why a wizard > almost always has a magical child. And one recessive to explain why > there may suddenly appear a magical person in a totally muggle > family. I'll attempt to draw a simple picture here for you. > > w=wizard recessive > W=wizard dominant > m=muggle recessive > M=muggle dominant > > > M w > M 0 MM 0 Mw 0 > w 0 Mw 0 ww 0 > 1 In one case,MM, the child will be totally muggle. > 2 In the second case, Mw, the child will be a muggle, but will > carry the wizard chromosome (which in a later generation, if paired > with another recessive w gene, it will create on possible wizard) > 3 In the last case, ww, the child is magical. > 4 1/4 chances of a magical child. > > There may also be a magical dominant trait which when paired with a > muggle dominant trait, it will over power the muggle trait. > M w > W 0 WM 0 Ww 0 > w 0 Mw 0 ww 0 > 1 The case, WM, wizard overpowers muggle creating a wizard child > with a muggle trait, which may evenutally lead to a squib in a later > generation. > 2 The case, Ww, leaves a magical child. Possible problem with > squib in later generation, if paired with a M dominant trait. > 3 The case, Mw, creates a muggle(squib), with a recessive wizard > gene. > 4 The last case, ww, creates a wizard. > > This seems highly simplified but is illustrated to the best of my > ability. Perhaps there is a biology professor/teacher out there that > can provide another explanation. > > Andrew > A Science Geek still working somewhat in the Genetics Field Replies: If it were purely a genetically inheirited trait, then someone like Hermione or any other of the numerous muggleborns would have some great aunt or cousin who was also known as going to some odd school in Scotland and for making things happen. Most especially Hermione who loves her research. And if it were a mutant manifestation, then I think it would be very rare. I don't think magic is a "trait" that follows Mendelian Genetics at all. I think we have to accept there is some **magic** involved. Unless, it is a genetic syndrome of sorts that is an aberration of one particular c-some pair or such. Perhaps one that its spontaneous manifestation (muggleborn) is caused by some unwitting catalyst during conception, pregnancy or birth. However, once the mutation (from normal) establishes itself in the genome of the witch or wizard, they go on ahead to pass it on as a simple and typical mendelian trait--most likely dominant is my guess. This would also allow for squibs who are both simple recessive gene carriers and may even have simply occurred because the original mutation or aberration corrected itself. Arya (who snipped off and trashed this whole big stupid theory I had using Introns to explain magic. It was just too crazy.) From patnkatng at cox.net Thu Jan 15 03:03:57 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:03:57 -0000 Subject: Recurrences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88782 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > You can stretch a point here because in the Dark Forest, there are > death connections because of the unicorns and there's also dear > old Aragog wanting to feed his family....... Katrina again: Sorry, I should have chosen my wording more carefully. My bad. Each of the times Harry has had his "Grande Finale" showdown with LV (always without interfering with his scholastic commitments) he has been either underground or in a place associated with death. While he had a "brush" with LV in the Dark Forest, it wasn't the Big Showdown. John Granger, of _The Hidden Key to Harry Potter_ mentions this pattern in his book. Actually, he goes into great depth about it and the symbolism associated with Harry & LV's "showdowns." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.9docs/16-9pg34.html is a good link to some of his latest theories about the books, if you're interested. My point was that Egypt, being a country whose ancient people were fascinated with life and death, and life after death, would be a likely place for another such encounter. Granger thinks one of the next encounters will be in the Dark Forest, but he doesn't say how this will fit with his established pattern. He also believes, based on his Alchemical interpretation of JKR's creatures, that the Unicorns will be back ? perhaps playing an important role ? before the end. Katrina, who really, really needs to turn off the computer and go to sleep. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Jan 15 03:01:28 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:01:28 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] McGonagall, Figg, and Tartans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40069D38.14178.6C6C43@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88783 On 14 Jan 2004 at 21:12, frost_indri wrote: > Anyhow, I'm trying to find McGonagall on the clan registries, and > it's not coming up. Moody came up under Clan Stewart, and MacNair > came up under Clan Macpherson and Clan Macnaught. Hmmm... Nope not > finding MacGonagall (Most sights insert the "a" into "Mc" whether > you want it there or not. :p *sighs*) A friend who is a professional genealogist has told me that McGonnagall is an Irish sept, not a Scots one. Originating in County Donegal, as McGonigle. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 15 03:15:39 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:15:39 +0000 Subject: Vampires and Werewolves Hate Each Other? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88784 jakejensen at hotmail.com said: >4. In many myths, vampires and werewolves hate each other (for a >recent rehash, see Underworld...it's okay). The only DADA that Snape >complains to DD about (in the book) is Lupin (who is a vampire). Could you please provide an example of this? I ask not because I wish to enter the argument over whether Snape is a literal or a figurative pain in the neck, but because the only source I know of for this myth is White Wolf's World of Darkness. Also, although it's true that Lupin is the only DADA that Snape complains about, he's also the only one that Snape *knew* a reason to complain about, since the shortcomings of Quirrel, Lockhart, and Moody (don't they sound like a law firm?) weren't known until after they were already at Hogwarts. And Dumbledore didn't pick Umbridge, so it would have been pointless for Snape to complain about her to Dumbledore. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 15 03:15:29 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:15:29 -0000 Subject: the Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88785 We were reminded by geoff in message 88728 that Fred and George got the Map while in detention with Filch, grabbing it out of a drawer of confiscated stuff. And this raises questions. Why would they grab the Map since it was just a blank piece of paper rather than something that looked interesting? ("Oooh, look at this drawer full of goodies! I'll just grab this blank piece of parchment with no instructions.") And that leads to the basic question of how they learned to use it. Could they have learned from the person Filch confiscated it from? From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 15 03:22:20 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:22:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff References: Message-ID: <009001c3db16$dabeb2c0$c15aaacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88786 June: > And if that is supposed to make me say "Sorry I must > be wrong - out-metaphored" - hate to disappoint you but it failed. June, listen, you may be getting a little upset. It's an emotional thread, because Snape is a character of complexity who evokes so many resonances in people--personally, memory, whatever. But this list has never been about trying to convince, quash, "out"-anything, or defeat. It's about *discussing.* For my part, I've enjoyed the explorations of people's viewpoints, because of the craft and intellect applied to the *same canon* to get such different "takes." There is no "up-man-ship" happening here. > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you > all for Snape to be a vampire? I prefer him human because I believe > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being. So go > on - what's your excuse? The best. *Because.* Their take, their interpretation, works better with him that way. The very same reason, the best, that I think he's not. Our beliefs are emotional, based on how we interact with the character. All the canon-parsing is our attempt to shore up or support that initial reaction. ~Amanda (::sticks out tongue at Pippin:: --he is *so* not a vampire! you wait) From prisoneroflittlewhinging at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 21:13:12 2004 From: prisoneroflittlewhinging at yahoo.com (Suzy) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:13:12 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: <000901c3dadc$7f6a0260$a6a09c18@cr390913a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88787 Bobby wrote: > How did Fred and George get the Map in the first place? Alina: > I'm pretty sure Fred and George said they found it in Filch's > office among a bunch of other things he confiscated and swiped it from > his drawer. Alina is right. It can be found in Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter Ten, "The Marauder's Map." ~Priz of Little Whinging~ From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 05:33:37 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:33:37 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88788 > Neri wrote: > It is even possible that DD himself sent Ron, the > young version of himself, to the past in order to become DD and carry > out this special mission. > > vmonte responds: > > I like the idea of Ron having a special mission but I'm not sure I > understand the theory that you are allowed to go back in time as long > as you do not change anything? Why go back in the first place unless > you want to change something? > Neri answers: Well because in the frame of the "What's Done Is Done" (WDID) theory, you are allowed to "help the past along its way", even though you are not allowed to change it. So if you detected a suspicious hole in a plot that went in the right direction for you, you might want to go back and plug it. For example, DD had witnessed that Buckbeak had disappeared before the execution, and he probably had a shrewd guess who was responsible for that, so he sent Harry and Hermione to the past to carry it out. A more accurate (but more confusing) way to look at it is that the hole must plug itself, because it *was* plugged. If for example HRH were saved from the dementors by Harry from the future, then you know that he is destined to go back and do it. It would work (because it did work) even if he does not know about it. But if he does know, he may consider it a special mission, and with a bit of careful planning he may carry it out with less damage to his future self. After all, even if Harry knows his future self will be there just in time to save his past self, he does not know what will happen to his future self a second *after* that. The future Harry might still be attacked from behind by another gang of dementors and be finished off before he has the time to call the patronous back. So it is always a good idea to plan ahead (or in whatever direction...). If this is still confusing, try my extensive explanation in the original post (#88636). Neri From astrid at netspace.net.au Thu Jan 15 06:21:40 2004 From: astrid at netspace.net.au (Astrid Wootton) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:21:40 +1100 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88789 Lisa wrote: I was just curious, she does this charm twice out of school she does this charm twice out of school (once on the train in the first book and again in Diagon Alley in the second) book) Snip Berit replies: Snip how many times haven't we seen Harry w/friends and Draco w/friends jinxing and hexing each other on the train? Snip Also, I thought that Hermione fixed Harry's broken glasses in Diagon Alley once, or is that movie contamination? Astrid replies Hermione doesn?t fix Harry?s glasses on the train in PS/SS chapter 6 (UK PB page 79/80) This appears to be movie contamination. In CoS chapter 4 Flourish and Blotts (UK PB page 46 *Mr Weasley* mends Harry?s glasses. Again movie contamination ? Hermione mends them in the film. A. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 06:45:35 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:45:35 -0000 Subject: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: <40066FF0.32706.534EC28@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 14 Jan 2004 at 23:35, justcarol67 wrote: > > > Back to the original question: Isn't Head Boy primarily an academic > > honor? > > We simply don't know one way or the other. ... most schools that > have Head Boys and Head Girls do *not* treat it as primarily an > academic honour. ... A Head Boy or Girl would generally have a > fairly good academic record, because it's often the type of position > given based on overall achievement - but being good at several > things, rather than brilliant at one. > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately bboy_mn: Once again, the ever brilliant Shaun and I are on, if not the same track, then at least, parallel tracks. First, I don't get the sense that Head Boy is ONLY the captain of the Prefects. Certainly, that may be one aspect of it, but I'm convinced that the honor is not limited to that. As a purely academic honor, Head Boy would be similar to 'Top Boy'; the Top boy in the school. However, subtle as the distinction is, I think Head Boy is more like 'Best Boy'; the best overal boy in the school. The one boy (or girls) who has so distinguished himself, that he deserves to be honored by the school before he leaves. In that light, I think we will nearly all agree that Harry is the 'best' boy in the school, so the honor could easily fall to him. Harry may not be the top boy in the school, but he has demonstrated again and again, that he is definitely a very positively outstanding boy. However, the game is not over yet, and Ron and Neville both have opportunities to distinguish themseleves in the next two years (book years). One related, but slightly aside comment about Ron and The Mirror of Erised, I personally don't think what Ron sees in the mirror is a list of distinctions he specifically wants (head boy, captain, etc...). I think what he and we are seeing is that Ron wants to stand out, he wants to achieve, he wants to distinguish himself in positive ways. Reasonably, he could achieve many of the honors he view in the mirror, but he is already on the path to defining himself and his achievements on his own term, and not just mirroring his brothers. He has already shown courage and faced dangers that his brothers have not, and he has won a 'Special Services to the School' award (something his brothers have not) for helping rid the school of the Basilisk, clearing Hagrid's name, and saving his sister. My instinct tells me that Harry will be Best/Head Boy, but Ron will sufficiently distinguish himself to the point that the Head Boy honor will not be necessary for him to feel proud of himself and his accomplishments. In summary, I agree with Shaun, who is far more knowledgable that I am, that Head Boy is a broad school-wide honor bestowed upon a student who has distinguished himself in a variety of ways. Just a thought. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 07:15:13 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:15:13 -0000 Subject: Wizard Genetics - Alternate Theory In-Reply-To: <9EA77168-4706-11D8-B67B-0050E420A018@waisman.wisc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jami DeQuardo wrote: > > A Science Geek still working somewhat in the Genetics Field Replies: > If it were purely a genetically inheirited trait, then someone like > Hermione or any other of the numerous muggleborns would have some great > aunt or cousin who was also known as going to some odd school in > Scotland and for making things happen. ...edited... > > Arya bboy_mn: First, my appologises for not having a direct response to your post, but you said something that reminded me of an old theory that was proposed on in this group. One that I will again put forth. Second, this is not my theory, I read it here, I am merely repeating it to the best of my memory. Someone speculated that there is a finite amount of magical essense in the universe, and this magical essense seeks embodiment; seeks to inhabit a living being. When magical birthrates decrease and magical death rates increase, this creates a surplus of magical essense in the universe that has no magical bodies to inhabit, so it seeks out the birth of a muggle who it feels will be appreciative and worthy of receiveing this magical essense, and a muggle-born witch or wizard is created. Logically, if wizard/witch birthrates increase and wizard/witch death rates decrease, there are plenty of people of magical descent available to absorb this magical essense. A Squib is born when there is a dearth of magical essense, too many wizards being born and not enough magical essense to go around. True, a pretty fanciful theory; not even remotely scientific, but it makes as much sense as anything else. Just passing it a long. bboy_mn From helen at odegard.com Thu Jan 15 07:37:50 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:37:50 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88792 wrote: > > Neri wrote: > > It is even possible that DD himself sent Ron, the > > young version of himself, to the past in order to become DD and > carry > > out this special mission. > > > > vmonte responds: > > > > I like the idea of Ron having a special mission but I'm not sure I > > understand the theory that you are allowed to go back in time as > long > > as you do not change anything? Why go back in the first place > unless > > you want to change something? > > > > Neri answers: > Well because > in the frame of the "What's Done Is Done" (WDID) theory, you are > allowed to "help the past along its way", even though you are not > allowed to change it. So if you detected a suspicious hole in a plot > that went in the right direction for you, you might want to go back > and plug it. > > For example, DD had witnessed that Buckbeak had disappeared before > the execution, and he probably had a shrewd guess who was responsible > for that, so he sent Harry and Hermione to the past to carry it out. > > A more accurate (but more confusing) way to look at it is that the > hole must plug itself, because it *was* plugged. If for example HRH > were saved from the dementors by Harry from the future, then you know > that he is destined to go back and do it. It would work (because it > did work) even if he does not know about it. But if he does know, he > may consider it a special mission, and with a bit of careful planning > he may carry it out with less damage to his future self. After all, > even if Harry knows his future self will be there just in time to > save his past self, he does not know what will happen to his future > self a second *after* that. The future Harry might still be attacked > from behind by another gang of dementors and be finished off before > he has the time to call the patronous back. So it is always a good > idea to plan ahead (or in whatever direction...). > > If this is still confusing, try my extensive explanation in the > original post (#88636). > > Neri Helen (LizardLaugh): I am not sure you *can* change the past. PoA would suggest that you can't. Ix and I thought perhaps Ron/DD may have changed something in GoF... but I dunno (gotta re-work that thought). After reading Troell's essay, I would like to think that JKR will be consistent with the time travel (whereas before, I thought the PoA model messed with the whole choice theme). So... whatever Ron does as Dumbledore is whatever he did as Dumbledore, even if he conciously tries to change something, it won't be changed because that is exactly what happened in the first place, unbeknownst to him. This is, of course, assuming JKR is consistant with the model she set up in PoA. As for Dumbledore sending Ron back on a mission... no, I don't think so at this point, at least, not in a way where he gives Ron any real knowledge. My bet is that it will be an accident. My main reason for thinknig this is the Prophecy... Dumbledore seems genuinely surprised by it. So far, Harry hasn't told Ron about it, and if the Ron=DD theory is correct, he can't. Unless those brains or the Oblivious Ointment to fix the damage screws with his brain. Maybe THAT is why Dumbledore needs the Penseive, lol. Compare and contrast: Dumbledore on Divination and Trelawney -- "On a cold, wet night sixteen years ago, in a room above the bar at the Hog's Head inn. I had gone there to see an applicant for the post of Divination teacher,though it was against my inclination to allow the subject of Divination to continue at all. The applicant, however, was the great-great granddaughter of a very famous, very gifted Seer and I thought it common politeness to meet her. I was disappointed. It seemed to me that she had not a trace of the gift herself. I told her, courteously I hope, that I did not think she would be suitable for the post. I turned to leave." Ron on Trelawney, Dumbledore and Divination -- "Bet Dumbledore wishes he could've got rid of Trelawney for good," said Ron, now munching on his fourteenth Frog. "Mind you, the whole subject's useless if you ask me, Firenze isn't a lot better..." Why Harry doesn't tell the kids about the Prophecy: Harry's heart began to race. He had not told Ron, Hermione or anyone else what the prophecy had contained. Neville had told them it had smashed while Harry was pulling him up the steps in the Death Room and Harry had not yet corrected this impression. He was not ready to see their expressions when he told them that he must be either murderer or victim, there was no other way. I find Harry's reasoning painfully ironic, since his reasons for not telling Ron and Hermione are similar to Dumbledore's. Ron knows there is a Prophecy... he just doesn't know what is about, who said it or who heard it. So even though Dumbledore knows a lot, his knowledge is limited to what Ron knows. Therefore, I think if Dumbledore *did* send Ron back in time on purpose, he would tell Ron about the Prophecy, considering how much pain it caused. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 15 07:44:37 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:44:37 -0000 Subject: The Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtb333" wrote: Rob: > All of these are good ideas, but isn't it more likely that the map > was just passed down through the generations. Upon the Marauders > graduation there was no more use for it, so it was passed to a worthy > student, and so on until it was passed to Fred and George. This > makes snse to me as who is more deserving of a map like this then > Fred and George. Yes, but canon indicates that Fred and George "acquired" the Map by devious means. It wasn't really "passed" to them in that sense. Anyway, there haven't been many generations... The Marauders, Fred & George, Harry. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 08:36:58 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:36:58 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous (part 2) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88794 This is the second part of a post regarding time travel in the HP books (part 1 can be found in #88636). Here I'll try to explore how JKR might bring off the really-big-time-travel-twist without (pardon my language) biting her own behind. In this part I assume that it is possible not only to travel to the past, but also to change it (see part 1 for this important distinction). As my test case I use the Ron=DD theory, which is discussed as part of the knight2king theory (read all about it in http://www.knight2king.net , hoping I got the link right this time). Maybe I should make it clear that I'm not putting all my money on this theory yet, but since it has some support in canon I thought that it could be a good test case for demonstrating the problems and the possibilities in a really-big-time-travel-twist. And besides, it was fun trying to work it out. Time travel does add a whole new dimension to HP speculating. So, here we go again into to the DD=Ron theory: At some point before the outcome of the match in book 7, Ron is somehow sent 130 yrs into the past and becomes DD, and now the question is, does he try to change the past and prevent the war? If he doesn't, we get the horrible (IMO) scenario of a man who, for 130 years, is doomed to watch all the terrible events he knows are going to happen unfolding again, as I discussed in part 1. I find it difficult to imagine a worse doom for any person. I feel certain that DD could not have gone through such a long and terrible punishment and remain the cheerful, twinkling optimist that he is. But if he tries to change the past, and especially if he succeeds, then the course of events must be very different than what is described in the books. And in this new course of events, Ron might not be born at all. Or he might grow up to be a very different person, or the event that caused Ron to be sent to the past might not happen. Paradox! Interestingly, the ingenious originators of the knight2king theory must have felt what a nest of pixies they set loose here, because they had this idea: In GoF, DD seems to try preventing Harry from getting into the Triwizard Tournament with his age line. He seems to have some premonition that it is bad for Harry to participate. What if, in the last turn of the wheel, Harry was elected as the official Hogwarts champion? Ron had witnessed the terrible outcome of this, and so when he travels to the past and becomes DD, he tries preventing it with the age line the next time around. But his meddling with time not only fails to prevent Harry from participating, it also causes poor Cedric to enter and get killed. So maybe meddling with time is indeed, as Hermione claims in PoA, extremely dangerous. DD knows this, and this explains why he mostly avoids changing the past, but sometime he just can't restrain himself. Note that from purely theoretical considerations of time travel there is no reason to think that, if you change the past, the change must be for the worse. This is entirely a JKR thing. But since this is JKR's universe, she can make the rules of time travel too, and maybe even find a good reason for them. Perhaps some powerful wizard at the dawn of time put a curse on past changing. I have two problems with the above scenario. The first is a matter of taste. Personally I find it just as horrible for poor DD as the previous scenario, if not even worse. Now he has to watch all the bad things he knows are going to happen, and he *is* permitted to try and prevent them, but he also knows that any interfering is likely to bring even a worst outcome. This is kind of like a man dying of thirst on a raft in the middle of the ocean. All the water in the world is right under his nose, but he knows that drinking will only make him thirstier. My second problem is more fundamental: this scenario assumes that there was a different history, call it H-2, which Ron/DD is coming from. In H-2 the events were somewhat different then the history as we know it in the books (which you may term H-1). This is actually a good thing, because it prevents the terrible paradox. If DD changes the future of H-1, the events of H-2, from which DD is coming, are not affected at all. So you can change the past without fear you will change yourself, because you don't change your own history, you just start a new history. But by the same logic the DD in H-2 should come from a yet different history H-3. And the DD in H-3 from H-4, etc. etc. So JKR is saved from paradox only by having an infinite number of histories. But this scenario *can* be improved. Actually, JKR can save herself from paradox by devising just two histories. This may be termed the Double Loop Ploy (DLP): Ron travels 130 years into the past, and becomes DD. He does everything he can to prevent LV rise to power, and succeeds, but this causes an unexpected, tragic turn of events. Say, in this history DD fails to defeat Grindelwald, so there is a war all over again, only a different war with another Bad Guy. Somehow, a Ron is born in this history too, and this Ron is also, somehow, transported to the past. Note that this is a different Ron (call him Ron-2). He must be different because he has a different history, H-2. In fact, it might not even be Ron this time around. It might even be Percy. After all, this is Percy-2, who is also different from the Percy we know. But I digress. So Ron-2 goes into the past and becomes DD-2, who does everything he can to prevent the terrible events of H-2 and (surprise!) causes things to happen exactly as they are described in the books, what turns out to be H-1. In which there is the Ron we all know and love (and now turns out to be only Ron-1), who is transported into the past... but wait, JKR already took care of that. So H-1 originates from H-2, and H-2 originates from H-1, and nowhere along the way there is a paradox. BTW it is also possible to carry out a Triple Loop Ploy or a Quadruple Loop Ploy, etc. but I'll leave this to your wild imagination. Only take care to tie the two ends of the loop together securely when you finish. What I like about the DLP scenario is that DD is *not* Ron. He is in fact Ron-2, a different person with different memories, and thus we are spared the horrible scenario of a DD who, for 130 years, is doomed to watch all the terrible events he knows are going to happen unfolding again. What I still don't like about the DLP is that, well, as Harry says to Hermione after completing a mere 3 hrs excursion into the past: "you explain!". Only in this case it is JKR who is stuck with explaining the above to her readers. And what about the events of H-2? Is she going to write another 7 books describing them? I'm not sure I can stand it. Does Tom-2 marry Myrtle-2 instead of killing her? Does Sirius-2 get to the finish line alive? But not to worry, JKR might still bring off the loop within a single history, and tie it all together neatly. This is the Single Loop Feint (SLF). Watch carefully: Ron is hurtled 130 yrs into the past, but in the process he suffers a complete amnesia. He wonders around in the past, not knowing who he is, and is found and adopted by the kind Dumbledores. He becomes the great DD and all the sad things that are described in the books happen because he does not remember that he has to prevent them (only he still might retain some vestigial memories, which explain his amazing intuition about some events and people). Only by the end of book 7 he witnesses young Ron falls into a giant time-turner and disappears, and then it finally dawns on him what happened here and who he is. So he hugs Molly and Arthur, crying: "my beloved parents! You have not lost your son. You have just found him again, only he is now old and wise. What, don't you believe me? I'll prove it to you". And to the surprise of all present, the great DD lifts his robe and uncovers his left knee. "Here, surely you recognize this scar!" OK, the SLF is kind of cheating. The trick (did you catch me there?) was that the person did travel to the past, but the information about the future, which is the really important and really problematic part, did not. My point is, however, that JKR might still find ways to get away with the time travel thing. But for this she must be pretty ingenious and very, *very* careful. We are used to think of JKR as pretty much the god in the universe she has created. She has the complete freedom to plot the story in any way she wants to, and she can introduce any kind of strange magic to help herself along. This is not entirely true, because JKR can't have a plot that plainly contradicts a previous part of the plot, but this still leaves her a lot of freedom as she plots her path into the open future. What I tried to show here is that this freedom drastically shrinks if she goes into time traveling. Looping the plot backward and forward in time means the chances for contradiction increase exponentially, and in unexpected and devious ways too. Suddenly it becomes difficult to find even one consistent plot, not to mention finding a good one. And thus I conclude this humble treatise with a dire warning: authors beware! There are many kinds of time travel in this world, and none of them should be used lightly. Neri From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jan 15 08:42:12 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:42:12 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > Kneasy: > > 1. Please state concisely your definition of a vampire. > > 2. List, with canon references, where Snape actually corresponds > > to these. > > > I have to admit, I never really think of it in this way. As I > posted previously, I think (1) there have been a lot of vampire > refs in the books and (2) some point to Snape. But, in the spirit > of it all, here goes.... > > Here's what we know about vampires from the canon: > 1. Some live in the forest outside Hogwarts. Ergo, vampires must > like some connection with the forest (maybe it's just a good place > to eat or hide or live...something). Actually, we don't know this. The quote in question is "They say he met vampires in the Black Forest, and there was a nasty bit o' trouble with a hag -- never been the same since.". Black Forest != Forbidden Forest, necessarily, since he was taking a year off from Hogwarts at the time". Unless there's another Forest related quote I'm missing... Interesting vampire mentions (!Snape, necessarily): (Ignoring that Lockhart perpetually lies) "...a vampire who had been unable to eat anything except lettuce since Lockhart had dealt with him." Hagrid in OoP: "Ran inter a couple o' mad trolls on the Polish border an' I had a sligh' disagreement with a vampire in a pub in Minsk, bu' apart from tha' couldn't'a bin smoother." >From the OWLS in OoP: "He had a stab at question five (How was the Statute of Secrecy breached in 1749 and what measures were introduced to prevent a recurrence?) but had a nagging suspicion that he had missed several important points; he had a feeling vampires had come into the story somewhere." >From PoA: "Wonder what they'll give us next year?" (re DADA) said Seamus Finnigan gloomily. "Maybe a vampire," suggested Dean Thomas hopefully. --Arcum From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 08:52:06 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:52:06 -0000 Subject: Was LV a teacher in Hogwarts ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88796 "frost_indri" wrote: > How about this quote from DD in CoS: > "Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called > Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts. He > disappeared after leaving the school...traveled far and wide... > sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of > our kind underwent so many dangerous magical transformations that > when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable. > Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome > boy who was once Head Boy here." > > Basically DD is telling Harry (and us) that Before he > became the Dark Lord, Tom spent his time studying, learning, and > changing himself in to his "beloved" snake-faced self today. So > while the idea of Voldemort teaching at Hogwarts is plausible (you > do have a good point in that he could have gotten away with it), I > don't think the cannon agrees with it. I remember that quote, but I also remember that it is Dumbledore who said that. And by now, I've grown *very* suspicious of anything DD might say, because he's proven in the past that he says only the parts of the truth that he doesn't mind revealing. So just because he seems to say that Tom Riddle left school, disappeared for years, resurfaced as LV, and started the War immediately, doesn't mean that is necessarily all that happened. If, in the meantinme, LV had taught at Hogwarts, right under DD's nose, under a false identity, I would understand that DD might not be too willing to reveal that to Harry. After all, we have to remember, for example, that nobody told Harry about Sirius Black being his godfather, not even DD. They all knew it, but noone told him. What other dark secrets are people keeping ? > As Hargrid says in PS/SS, "Anyways, this -- this wizard, > about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em > too -- some were afraid, some just wanted a bit o' his > power, 'cause he was gettin' himself power, all right." That doesn't mean anything. Hagrid might not have known that Professor Smith at Hogwarts also happened to be LV. With all the appearance-changing methods we've seen (transfiguration, polyjuice potion, metamorphagi, etc...), we simply cannot be certain that LV wasn't living a double-life : the public one as snake-faced LV, and a private one as normal-faced whoever. > Witches and Wizards are in the end, human. And if they feel > threatened (i.e. the "purebloods" have noticed that there are less > and less of them, and more and more of the "mudbloods" and "half- > bloods." Thus they are loosing control in the WW) they will follow > a strong leader. Most notably in recent history, Hitler, Stalin > and General Mau. Well, I don't know much about General Mao, but what I do know about Hitler and Staline is that they didn't come right on the scene as murderous crazy war leaders. They seemed "pretty normal" at first, they gathered followers the natural way, they gained power gradually, and they revealed the extent of their blood-thirst only after years of power. And I think LV did the same. He don't think he could come right away saying : "I want to kill all the Mudbloods, I want all the power for myself, I'll kill whoever doesn't obey me, now bow to me !!" If he had done that, he would most likely have been killed or imprisonned and completely discredited. He had to spread his word first, to convince some influent people, to plant the seeds of fear, of distrust, of hatred, in people's hearts. The way I see it, for example, he could have used his low-profile persona and the few supporters he might have brought back with him from abroad, to gather sympathizers for the hidden LV. > So by the time he got back, DD was probably headmaster, and he did > have control over who his teachers were. Not really. First because LV started gathering followers at about the same time DD became Headmaster, so as I said in my previous post, LV could already have been a teacher at Hogwarts for several years under another Headmaster before starting the war. And as for DD having some control over who his teachers are, I'll have only 2 words about that : Quirrell, and Impostor!Moody (and even Lockhart...). > Not to mention, youth led movements tend to antagonize the > older generation, but the older generation (at first at least, and > some till the last) agreed with Voldemort. They agreed with him, but they wouldn't fight. As Sirius explained, his parents agreed with LV, but only his brother enrolled in LV's army. Moreover, I'm not sure LV's army was youth-led. It was full of young people all right, because they are full of energy and easily manipulated, but I'm pretty sure there were a few older people guiding and leading all the young ones. As for American politics, sorry you lost me on that one :-) I'm French, and History never was my cup of tea. I actually remember falling asleep during a History class in my last highschool year, lol ! > As for the spy!Snape theory, why wouldn't Voldemort want a > DE that was working under DD? That just means that he has someone > on the inside of Hogwarts who can gather information for him, start > a secret "Voldemort Youth" club, and spread dissent, place > paintings with DE sympathies around (spies), etc. etc. So > Basically, that would make Snape a double agent. And cue > the "James Bond Music!" You got me wrong on that one. I'm saying that according to my theory, LV would actually *very much* want Snape there, to continue what he had himself been doing for years ! Thanks for your answers ! Del From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jan 15 09:15:16 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:15:16 -0000 Subject: Was LV a teacher in Hogwarts ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > "frost_indri" wrote: > > > How about this quote from DD in CoS: > > "Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called > > Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts. He > > disappeared after leaving the school...traveled far and wide... > > sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of > > our kind underwent so many dangerous magical transformations that > > when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable. > > Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome > > boy who was once Head Boy here." > > > > Basically DD is telling Harry (and us) that Before he > > became the Dark Lord, Tom spent his time studying, learning, and > > changing himself in to his "beloved" snake-faced self today. So > > while the idea of Voldemort teaching at Hogwarts is plausible (you > > do have a good point in that he could have gotten away with it), I > > don't think the canon agrees with it. > > I remember that quote, but I also remember that it is Dumbledore who > said that. And by now, I've grown *very* suspicious of anything DD > might say, because he's proven in the past that he says only the > parts of the truth that he doesn't mind revealing. In particular, he said "He disappeared *after leaving the school*". Tom could, with this phrasing, have stayed at Hogwarts after graduating as a teacher for a few years before disappearing, and because he didn't leave Hogwarts, it would technically be accurate. And anything DD says tends to twist meanings... --Arcum From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Jan 15 09:17:49 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:17:49 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88798 I wondered if Petunia ever suspected Dudley to be a wizard. When Dudley was first born - and during his first years of growing up - there was no way Petunia could know if maybe he would turn out to be one. Even Vernon may have had his thoughts seeing how he knew that two Muggles are actually able to produce a wizard/witch (Lily's parents). Wondering also when one can know for sure if one's child is a wizard/witch or not. Is it very early in the childs life or isn't it until the letter from Hogwarts arrives? In Harry's case it seems it was known wizardwide that he was actually born to be a wizard since his name had been in the books at Hogwarts since his birth. But what about Neville? Didn't his grandmother suspect him to be a squib? And Hermione? Was she in the books of Hogwarts since birth or didn't her name show up till she turned 11? So when does it come clear that a wizard is a wizard? Sorry if these things have been discussed to death - I've been away from this group for quite a while. Inge From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 15 09:17:54 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:17:54 -0000 Subject: Diary Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88799 Came across this quote from the diaries of Alan Clark, Minister under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, playboy and all-round bounder: "Like anyone who has had an unhappy childhood, I'm frightened of being laughed at". Now who does that remind me of? Sylvia From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jan 15 09:57:40 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:57:40 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: <20040114200528.68277.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, An'nai Jiriki wrot > > Japan and China have a good vampire tale, but I forget > it. Does anyone else know of it? I think you are thinking of gaki. Most of my information is 2nd and 3rd hand, but here's what I recall. Gaki are spirits of those who were greedy in life, and are condemned to wander the earth filled with insatiable hunger. There are several harmless types of gaki (tea gaki, for example), but you'd likely be thinking of blood, soul, or flesh gaki. Blood gaki are more traditional vampires, killed by a stake through the heart. The flesh gaki rip flesh from their victims and eat it. Soul gaki are the scariest of the bunch. They can travel in the form of a black cloud or their previous victims, and basically envelop you and eat your soul. None of them seem to have problems with light, IIRC... --Arcum From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 15 11:07:02 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:07:02 -0000 Subject: McGonagall, Figg, and Tartans In-Reply-To: <40069D38.14178.6C6C43@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: Frost: > > Anyhow, I'm trying to find McGonagall on the clan registries, and > > it's not coming up. Moody came up under Clan Stewart, and MacNair > > came up under Clan Macpherson and Clan Macnaught. Hmmm... Nope not > > finding MacGonagall (Most sights insert the "a" into "Mc" whether > > you want it there or not. :p *sighs*) > Shaun: > A friend who is a professional genealogist has told me that > McGonnagall is an Irish sept, not a Scots one. Originating in > County Donegal, as McGonigle. Geoff: I have commented way back on the Scottish connections of the name McGonagall. It was the "Great McGonagall" who penned those excruciating verses about the fall of the Tay Bridge in 1879 and a number of equally Vogon-style poems. However,following Shaun's note, I've just done a quick search and found a website (www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk) devoted to the dear man - Sir William Topaz McGonagall - his parents were Irish but he was born in Edinburgh and brought up in Scotland. From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 15 11:19:07 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:19:07 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88802 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arcum42" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, An'nai Jiriki > wrot > > > > Japan and China have a good vampire tale, but I forget > > it. Does anyone else know of it? > > I think you are thinking of gaki. Most of my information is 2nd > and 3rd hand, but here's what I recall. Gaki are spirits of those > who were greedy in life, and are condemned to wander the > earth filled with insatiable hunger. There are several > harmless types of gaki (tea gaki, for example), but you'd > likely be thinking of blood, soul, or flesh gaki. > > Blood gaki are more traditional vampires, killed by a > stake through the heart. The flesh gaki rip flesh from > their victims and eat it. Soul gaki are the scariest of the > bunch. They can travel in the form of a black cloud or > their previous victims, and basically envelop you and > eat your soul. > > None of them seem to have problems with light, IIRC... > > --Arcum I remember a japanese tale about a creature with vampire powers. By day, it looked like a beautiful young woman. By night, the beautiful young woman turned into a cat and sucked the blood of her lover. No, no, no; I'm not pretending Crookshanks, Ginny, Hermione, figgy or Mc Gonnagall are potentially vampires! One tiny Knut Iris From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 11:24:50 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:24:50 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88803 > Helen (LizardLaugh): > So... whatever Ron does as Dumbledore > is whatever he did as Dumbledore, even if he conciously tries to > change something, it won't be changed because that is exactly what > happened in the first place, unbeknownst to him. This is, of course, > assuming JKR is consistant with the model she set up in PoA. > > As for Dumbledore sending Ron back on a mission... no, I don't think > so at this point, at least, not in a way where he gives Ron any real > knowledge. My bet is that it will be an accident. Neri answers: I also don't see any special mission that DD/Ron would have sent Ron to carry out. I only said that such a scenario can be managed in WDID without a paradox. This is because *any* scenario can be managed in WDID, as long as you take care not to change the past. However, such scenarios might get so weird (while still fully consistent!) they would be practically unbelievable. I suspect that you still do not comprehend how weird and cruelly deterministic is the situation of DD/Ron condition under WDID. Ron knows that Harry was not warned about the prophecy. That this is why he went to the DoM, and that Sirius died because of it. So according to your scenario DD/Ron knows it too. He have known it during the whole Year 5, and during all the years before that, and he can't warn Harry, he can't warn Sirius, or prevent it in any other way, and he most probably knows why he can't (he was the mastermind behind the PoA time travel, after all). He can tell Harry that he must try these fine chipolatas by the table, but he can't add "and don't let Voldemort lure you into the DoM because Sirius will die". I think I would have gone insane in such a situation. And the whole dramatic speech of DD by the end of the Year 5, how he did not tell Harry about the prophecy in his first year because of this, and in the next year because of that, and so on, it is not only an outright lie but completely besides the point. He did not tell him because he could not. I still find this scenario revolting. Personally, I can't believe JKR is tricking us in such a nasty way. There may be ways to have a DD=Ron theory without such a scenario. Take a look at part 2 of my post (#88974). Neri From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Jan 15 11:51:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:51:47 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > Kneasy: > > 1. Please state concisely your definition of a vampire. > > 2. List, with canon references, where Snape actually corresponds > > to these. > > > I have to admit, I never really think of it in this way. As I posted > previously, I think (1) there have been a lot of vampire refs in the > books and (2) some point to Snape. But, in the spirit of it all, > here goes.... > > Here's what we know about vampires from the canon: > 1. Some live in the forest outside Hogwarts. Ergo, vampires must > like some connection with the forest (maybe it's just a good place to > eat or hide or live...something). > 2. Quirrell believes that garlic scares them away (or Fred and George > do, at very least). > 3. There are vampire bats. It is not clear if these are vampires > turned into bats or just vampire bats (As you have pointed out). > Hmm. This confirms my thoughts on how the different groups are approaching this bone of contention. I'll try and keep this as general as possible and use some of your and my points as examples of ways of analysing the case rather than as clubs to beat the opposition into submission. When the thread first crawled from the primeval ooze that is the collective conciousness of the membership, I asked myself six questions: 1. What is a vampire in the WW of JKR? 2. Which of the attributes that JKR ascribes to her vampires can be directly applied to Snape? 3. Is there vampire canon that can be *interpreted* as *perhaps* applicable to Snape. 4. Are there generally accepted, non-canon vampire characteristics (i.e. from other fantasy fiction) that fit Snape? 5. Any other pointers available that may give guidance? 6. Is there an identifiable plot thread that requires or is enhanced by a Snape!Vampire revelation? Reasonable questions on which to base an opinion, IMO. Answers I came up with: 1. A blank. JKR has never described her vampires. 2. Not applicable since 1. is unknown 3. Very little to get our teeth into. We just don't know what a vampire is or how it behaves in the Potterverse. 4. Not really; he doesn't seem to match the general fantasy profile of a daylight avoiding, coffin dwelling blood-sucker. 5. Questionable. A lot will depend on interpretation and extrapolation. 6. Apparently not; or at least not yet. It seems to me that all the argy-bargy has been based on points 4. & (particularly) 5. We all accept that JKR can do what she pleases, but on the vampire question she has done nothing to lighten our darkness. Any disagreement so far with my methodology? So, the discussion has boiled down to whether or not there is a non- canon vampire lore that Snape could match (a largely academic point, since JKR tends to devise her own constructs according to her own needs without requiring the services of others, thank you very much) and the interpretation of what little we do have. And the interpretation can be critical, as is demonstrated by your reference to vampires in the forest at Hogwarts. The actual passage you're thinking of, is (I think) from PS/SS: "...but he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience...They say he met vampires in the Black Forest and there was a nasty bit o' trouble with a hag..." I didn't interpret this the same way as you seem to have done. I took it to mean the *actual* Black Forest - the massive one in Germany, not the Forbidden Forest on Hogwarts doorstep. Reasons? Well, Quirrell would hardly need a year off if he was just nipping past Hagrid's hut to get experience, and the real Black Forest has a nasty mythological reputation, it's where all those dark Germanic fairy-tales tend to be based - goblins, evil witches and the like. Additionally, later in the same volume, when they all troop off to do their detention with Hagrid, Malfoy says that he has heard that there are all sorts of things, like werewolves in there. No mention of vampires, though I suspect he would have if they were there. Your second point about Quirrell and garlic I interpreted as a hang- over from his scare in the Black Forest, paranoia if you like and not specifically aimed at Snape. Interpretation again. The third point about vampire bats is a bit loose IMO. Vampire bats have been used as an hint or clue to the presence of vampires in other fantasies by other writers. JKR has mentioned them but we don't know what they mean, if anything. True, it can be considered as suggestive that it was the Transylvanian Quidditch captain that released them when they are mammals native to S.America only. So the reasoning might go - vampire bats plus Transylvania = Vampire alert. It's the sort of hint that I'd prefer to hold in abeyance and use as a supporting clue to firmer evidence. It's all in the interpretation. The same goes for your more extended list. Now I don't necessarily expect you to agree with my conclusions, your interpretations are your own, but I hope you can see why I and others express doubts; it's an alternative reading of the same words. And it will not be resolved until JKR decides to give a bit more page space to *her* vampires. Kneasy From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Thu Jan 15 12:12:29 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:12:29 -0000 Subject: Harry, Luna and the trip behind the veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88805 hi, Dedalus Diggle got me started and I found an interesting connection about Sirius's death. Dedalus and Icarus both fly off from prison. Icarus gets his wings burned but Dedalus flies off and lands on a place called Cumae. Don't know what he did there after that but Cumae is an interesting place because a sibyl lives there. Her name is Deiphobe. This is the character which leads Aeneas into underworld to meet his father through an opening on the island called Avernus. Before going however, according to her instructions, Aeneas has to pluck a golden bough from a tree, a tree favored by Proserpine/Persephone. That bough will help him cross Styx, which no ordinary living being is supposed to manage otherwise. Now according to Frazer, that golden bough which Virgil mentions in Aeneid is nothing but mistletoe. Connections ringing? I first thought that sybil was our good old Prof.Trelawney but well, I then thought of Luna. The name Deiphobe seems to suggest moon and Luna also means moon. Twice in OOTP she makes statements which recall this Aeneas business. First in Harry's DADA class she mentions something about mistletoe having nargles. And latter ofcourse, after Sirius falls behind the veil, she says something about meeting her mother because dead people are present behind that veil. So will she take Harry behind that veil to meet Sirius, with mistletoe as some kind of charm to get back? Because Harry Potter series seems to be heavily influenced by Roman mythology and most of contemporary fantasy seems to include this one trip to underworld( for example, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy), I think we will see something like this happen in the next book. spangb From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 12:16:59 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:16:59 -0600 Subject: Traditional Vampirism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88806 {Iris} Gaki are spirits of those who were greedy in life, and are condemned to wander the earth filled with insatiable hunger. There are several harmless types of gaki (tea gaki, for example), but you'd likely be thinking of blood, soul, or flesh gaki. Blood gaki are more traditional vampires, killed by a stake through the heart. The flesh gaki rip flesh from their victims and eat it. Soul gaki are the scariest of the bunch. They can travel in the form of a black cloud or their previous victims, and basically envelop you and eat your soul. None of them seem to have problems with light, IIRC... {Iris} I remember a Japanese tale about a creature with vampire powers. By day, it looked like a beautiful young woman. By night, the beautiful young woman turned into a cat and sucked the blood of her lover. {Now Anne} Both accounts are correct, in so far as my study of the subject is concerned. The Gaki are vamps of an oriental nature...although I think the cat creature, although gifted with vamp powers, is actually considered Yoma (demon)--one of many variations of the evil spirits in Japan that exist to live off the unwary--it's also very close to the "Kitsune" legends--stories that originated in China and made their way to Japan about a 'fox spirit' who walked among mankind in the form of a stunningly beautiful woman--except, of course, for the fox tail that she had to hide beneath her robes. It was said she could bring great fortune on the man she fixated upon--but at a price. Not only was he subject to her whims, but she would feed on his soul over the years, eventually leaving nothing more than a spiritless husk. She would then move on to the next victim, leaving the old victim to loose his fortune, his health, and eventually his life. One legend claims that such a creature had married one of the historically prominent rulers long ago, but I can't remember which Emperor the woman was linked with--and, sadly, I no longer have THAT book either...*growls* Anyhow...there is no denying that many cultures have bloodthirsty, vampiric-type beings in them (South America is lousy with them...), but for the sake of the Snape argument, I don't include them. For one....the vampire cannon mentioned so far in the HP universe seems to draw from the Slavic/Dracula legends, and two, since Sev is most definitely a 'White Boy', it would sort of push the envelope of believability even for the HP universe (how did an Englishman end up being a Japanese vampire?!). Not to mention that Rowling, thus far, has stuck with almost wholly European legends to draw from, or from mythologies that at the very least are taught world wide (Norse, Celtic, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, some Indian, etc) in most schools. Japan, China, South America, Africa, etc are usually glossed over (if mentioned at all) in the myth curriculum unless it's advanced studies in a University or collage... Again, not to say she couldn't draw from such sources, but given her track record on it so far (and the fact that she hasn't for other mythic figures), I find it unlikely...at least not for a character who apparently has not set foot out of Hogwarts, more or less, for over 15 years (except to spy and, I'm sure, to make trips to Hogsmeade and the like for his own enjoyment and the like), and has, at least according to cannon thus far (Meaning there is no mention of Sev taking a trip anywhere at any time), never left the UK at all his entire life... Good Old Moldy Voldy, however...has been just about everywhere in his search for immortality, or so it would seem....*winks* Anne From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Thu Jan 15 12:28:36 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:28:36 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > AmanitaMuscaria said > > > If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated elves, > > too? > > > > > Now, that is an interesting question. Along with whether goblins > own > > Gringotts or are just employed there, and who won the goblin wars? > > Why wouldn't there be renegrade groups of elves somewhere? Perhaps > > Harry needs to ask Dobby? > > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria > > If the Goblins won the goblin wars, why would they be regulated in > the wizarding laws. Wouldn't they be making the laws, and the > wizards following? That is what has happened in ever war that has > ever happened. Well, except Vietnam and sutch. > > Andrew AmanitaMuscaria again : Depends on if they want to, and on what the wars were about. The goblins' interest is in treasure, as presented in the canon. They may be totally uninterested in 'ruling' other beings. Therefore, the question of who owns Gringotts is pertinent. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 15 13:15:50 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:15:50 -0000 Subject: It wasn't me! (Re: Traditional Vampirism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > {Iris} > Gaki are spirits of those who were greedy in life, and are condemned to wander the earth filled with insatiable hunger. There are several harmless types of gaki (tea gaki, for example), but you'd likely be thinking of blood, soul, or flesh gaki. > > Blood gaki are more traditional vampires, killed by a stake through the heart. The flesh gaki rip flesh from their victims and eat it. Soul gaki are the scariest of the bunch. They can travel in the form of a black cloud or their previous victims, and basically envelop you and eat your soul. > > None of them seem to have problems with light, IIRC... > > {Iris} > I remember a Japanese tale about a creature with vampire powers. By day, it looked like a beautiful young woman. By night, the beautiful young woman turned into a cat and sucked the blood of her lover. > Iris now: I didn't write the first paragraph you quoted. It's by An'nai Jiriki, and I only quoted it replying Arcum's post (OOOh... how complicated it is...). But now, I take advantage of your mistake to thank you for your interesting message. Amicalement, Iris From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 13:38:51 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:38:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Traditional Vampirism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88809 {Pippin} Hmmm....Stoker was a pretty cosmopolitan fellow. He certainly seems to have drawn on the Jewish legend of the Lilit for his female vampires. Like her, they are creatures of night, drink blood, are seducers, prey on children and can be repelled by religious symbols. {Anne} Odd....I have never seen a mention of specifically female vampires at all in the HP books, including the suppliments. Again, a source paragraph (or several) would be nice....The only mention I've seen of enticing non-humans (Human like female creatures) Are the Veela--something again different from the vampire. As for Bram being "Cosmopolitan"....well, you can be that and still not be well read....conversely, you can also be well read and not use the references. {Pippin} But then the Slavic vampire legend itself is supposed to owe something to the Lilit, so you could say that Stoker was returning to original sources. {Anne} That particular 'fact' I have never come across in any of the academic books I read about Bram, or the Dracula legends. Catholicism (which has no mention at all of Lilith in thier books) was predominent in the Slavic areas, not Judaism, so I still cast a wary eye on that assumption. Not to mention that his source materail was from the folklore--and the common folk that knew it, through a friend that had returned from the Slavic regions, relating stories of the Vampires there. I don't have the book with me, but I can certainly quote my source stating that once I have gotten home once more...until then, however... I must confess that any claim that Lilith was a vampire in myth (since we are talking vampires here) has always been a suspect claim to me (and an alteration in modern times of what the original texts said about her in order to classify her in with vampires). In fact, her 'association' with vamps that I know of stemmed from three sources---The Golden Dawn, started by Aliester Crowley and friends, a few 'pop' references in 'pagan' and 'new age' books that 'claim' to know the truth behind such things as Vampirism (Usually found in the back corner of the back shelf of most used book stores, tucked in amoung the "My Father was an Alien" books.), and such gaming systems as Vampire: The Masquerade. Hardly convincing for me... However, I do have other sources that define Lilith--and not one mention of a vampire can be found, although she does share quite a few traits of the Succubi.... The most doubtful source, simply because it was written from a modern Pagan POV is first (I paraphrased a lot of the information since it would take much too long to type all of it out): ****From the "Goddess Oracle" Author: Amy Sophia Marashinsky....American Softback 1997 Ed. Pg. 108: According to her, Lilith was originally the Sumerian Queen of Heaven (AKA: Goddess) who predated the Goddess Inanna. When the Hebrew religion overtook that area, Lilith was rewritten into the holy books as Adam's fiesty first wife, who refused to allow him to dominate in the bedroom, instead insisting on equality between them. When Adam rebuked the concept, she departed and was then written ever after as a Demon in the Judiac myths. ****Next, From "When God was a Woman" Author: Merlin Stone. Aermican Hardback 1976 Ed. Pgs 158-159 and 195 Here, Lilith is first traced as being mentioned in a scrap of Sumerian text. She was a (real) young woman associated with the Temple of Inanna, and was identified as "The Hand of Innana". Appearently, it was her job to go out into the city and find young men to bring back to the temple. Incidently, the rites of Inanna, a sexual cult, included having sex in the temple--probably what the young men were being retrieved for. She goes on to again relate Lilith's place as Adam's wife in the Jewsish holy books, and then her conversion again, as a demon, once she refused Adam's dominence. As a demonic entity, she would go about looking for 'spoiled sperm" which she would then gather and use to make her own demonic children with. She also mentions an association with the Kabbalah, in which Lilith is "presented as the symbol of evil, the female devil" and notes (Through G. Scholem) that "Lilith, the Queen of Demons, or the demons of her retinue, do thier best to provoke men to sexual acts without benefit of a woman, thier aim being to make themselves bodies from the lost seed." ****The third source I have thus far is from "A Dictionary of Angels" written by Gustav Davidson. The book I have is a 1996 reprint of the 1967 works.. Softcover edition, pages 174-175. He states she originated in the Jewish texts, and says she was a "Female demon, enemy of infants, Bride of Sammael (One of the varitaions of Satan)". Again, she is linked as Adam's wife, and according to the book "The Book of Adam and Eve" (by Rabbi Eliezer), she bore 100 children to Adam a day *ouch* He also links her in Leviticus 19a--in where she is described, essentially, as a fiery tempered woman who remained with Adam until Eve arrived, and then left for the 'cities of the sea coast and where to this day she continues to try and ensnare mankind" She is noted as the first Temptress. Another of Gustav's notes on Lilith refers back to the Kabalah once again, where he links her as "The Demon of Friday", although he acknowledges that this particular version of her appears to have started up in the middle ages. He does acknowledge that that incarnation was linked to the Mesopatamian demons known as the 'Lili'. He goes on for another half page to list her semen collecting habits and the like but does not once link her to vamprism..... The fourth source I had readily available, does indeed list Lilith as one of the first Vampires. Sadly....it is "The Book of Nod"--a supplimentary gaming book for the White Wolf system--specifically for the Vampire: Masquerade series. Hardly a good arguement for Lilith as a vamp in true folklore. However, I can list the pages she is mentioned in....it's actually a fun read...;) "The Book of Nod" Written by Sam Chupp amd Andrew Groenburg. 1993 First Ed. softback. Refer to pgs. 14-15, 26-29, 37-39 and so on.... Anne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 13:49:28 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 7:49:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] It wasn't me! (Re: Traditional Vampirism) Message-ID: <20040115134928.WJRO19191.out008.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88810 Oi, sorry, Iris....I had to cut and paste the conversation to my work email because the verizon account doesnt keep the original messages when you reply using the webmail version (like now). I meant for that first one to read "Arcum", which is who I beleive wrote that first bit... With profuse apologies to all for the confusion.... Anne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 15 05:22:12 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:22:12 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised as prophecy In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040115004144.00d46a30@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88811 Hello everyone, my first post. I have been lurking for a while and would like to add my two knuts to the posts about the MoE. It seems to me that though Ron's vision of himself is more easily demonstrated in his life, Quiditch captain, Head Boy, etc. Harry's is equally profectic. As many have noted here, he cannot, without dying himself, join his biological family. However, at the end on OotP he is,in fact, surrounded by his "family". "Harry nodded. He somehow could not find words to tell them what it meant to him, to see them all ranged there, on his side." OotP pg. 870 American edition. It can also be said that he was "surrounded" by his family, his parents anyway, in the cage at the end of GoF. When his parents came out of Voldemort's wand and protected him long enough for him to get away. (Sorry, don't have GoF handy to check the page number.) Though I agree that the mirror is neither the truth nor a real predictor of the future, it seems that since both boys came to the MoE with a basically "pure heart" (Quirrel did not) it gave them a sort of guide post to reach for what their hearts desired. I will go back to lurking quietly. Suehpfan From pfsch at gmx.de Thu Jan 15 10:26:33 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:33 -0000 Subject: the Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88812 Hi Robert! > Robert wrote: > And this raises questions. Why would they grab the Map since it was > just a blank piece of paper rather than something that looked > interesting? It isn't stated that they only grabbed the map. Maybe it was just among other things they stole. Anyway, just the point that Filch classified a blank and old piece of parchment as highly dangerous (which it didn't seem at first glance) might have drawn their interest on it - a riddle. > Robert wrote: > Could they have learned from the person Filch confiscated it from? Since Lupin knew it "was confiscated many years ago" (as he told Harry in PA - not quoted literally), I suppose it was confiscated from him and his fellows during their Hogwarts time. Or from someone else whom he knew very well and who told him. Lupin didn't seem to chit-chat with Filch about the things he (Filch) ever confiscated. Bye Peter From pfsch at gmx.de Thu Jan 15 12:36:26 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:36:26 -0000 Subject: Theory (allies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88813 Hi! "lizvega2" wrote: > Harry will overcome (The Prophesy never says that the one with the > power will kill the dark lord, it doesn't)Voldemort by uniting the > entire magical community, and possibly muggles alike, against him. > Dobby- COS and GOF proved just how powerful elves are I also suppose, making allies with the house elves will be of importance for the victory over LV. The SPEW plot has been established through two books now and though SPEW itself might turn out as an error, its idea of giving more rights to those elves and improve their treatment will be an important one in one of the following books. Imagine powerfully magical elves with wands at Dumbledore's side... Maybe associated by their non domesticated relatives... :) Bye Peter (btw: 26/M from Trier, Germany - nearest Quidditch team are the Biggonville Bombers, Luxembourg) From pfsch at gmx.de Thu Jan 15 13:33:13 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:33:13 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88814 Hi AmanitaMuscaria! > Peter: > I wondered, why Harry never asked to see his parents' grave. > AmanitaMuscaria : I always assumed it was his upbringing - he > doesn't ask questions about his parents either, but then, he was > told from an early age not to ask questions and punished for doing > so. Peter: Seems to be a very good explanation for him not asking to me. I still wonder though whether he's ever told where it is and/or gets there. If he does it might be of importance - maybe that's where the dramatical show down will take place. Although there already was a important scene on a graveyard which would make "mine" just a repeated one. > Now, that is an interesting question. Along with whether goblins own > Gringotts or are just employed there, and who won the goblin wars? Peter: What wizards call "goblin war" might have been a rebellion "just" to gain full rights - which they might have won, now having those rights. Or goblins lost but wizardkind so many losses that they had to admit certain rights. Such as the right to have property and run a business. > Peter: If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated > elves, too? > AmanitaMuscaria : Why wouldn't there be renegrade groups of elves > somewhere? Perhaps Harry needs to ask Dobby? Peter: I shall remind him of that the next time I meet him. :) Indeed I assume that there are groups of elves given clothes - they can't all end up in Hogwarts (though it would explain the large number of elves in there). Although there is the possibilty that one elf is given freedom in one hundred years (i.e. it happens very rarely) and the fact that both Dobby and Winky were freed in such a short time was only a statiscal accident. ;) But if it happens more often they might group - and even join "wild elves" somewhere to live with them. It is said (I think it was in OoP, in a conversation about Kreacher) that house elves are under a charm making them willing serveants - correct me if I'm wrong. So I suppose that there are elves not being charmed in that way. In some myths the number of elves is quite high (an elf under every rock). And, in CS a Weasley (Ron?) states that they are only found in rich wizarding families, but even the Malfoys only had had Dobby. Since there can't be to many rich families (and Hogwarts as we know later, perhaps in the MoM and St. Mungus as well), either the population of elves had been reduced dramatically in history (which wouldn't be the first time WW did that to non-human magical creatures) or there are still non domisticated, probably highly intelligent and powerful "wild elves". Bye Peter From pfsch at gmx.de Thu Jan 15 13:49:19 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:49:19 -0000 Subject: Diary, map and Arthur Weasley's warning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88815 Hi there! The discussion about the Marauder's Map reminds me of a speculation I had. At the end of CS Arthur Weasley reminds Ginny that one shouldn't trust a thinking thing when one cannot see where it keeps its brain. At that time the warning couldn't help anymore. Harry remembers this when taking the Marauder's Map - which turned out to be trustworthy. Now my theory is that those were hints for a plot yet to come. A thinking thing not trustworthy. Where does the Sorting Hat keep its brain anyway (since I believe it's trustworthy it should be visible somehow)? Bye Peter From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 15 15:24:43 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:24:43 -0000 Subject: Which House were James, Sirius, and Remus in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88816 Carol in message 88750 raises objections to the idea that James and the boys were in Slytherin. Marianne in message 88761 makes a good response and I also addressed some of the issues in my two initial postings. But here is one point I hadn't thought of: In POA, Remus wants Gryffindor to beat Ravenclaw at Quidditch. Doesn't that mean he was in Gryffindor? No. Remus would support Harry. I'd bet he would also cheer for Harry over Slytherin even if Remus had been in Slytherin. Harry is Remus's last link to his best friend James and Lily ? Harry even looks like James with Lily's eyes, so Remus is reminded of James all the time. So of course he is going to cheer for Harry (and therefore his House) no matter what House Harry is in and what House Remus was in. In short, he won't cheer against Harry and his lost friend. Bobby From dk59us at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 04:49:09 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (dk59us) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 04:49:09 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88817 This is my first post; I do not seem to find this question in the various FAQs, so I hope that I haven't missed extensive previous discussions. References are made to the US paperback editions of COS, POA and GOF and the Canadian hardcover of OOP. By virtue of having Harry Potter under their roof for extended periods of time, the Dursleys have witnessed a number of things that might normally result in the arrival of a squad of Ministry memory charm operatives. In COS, there was the levitating pudding. Also in COS, all three Dursleys saw the flying car as Harry escaped. In POA, the inflation of Aunt Marge. In GOF, the Weasleys' destruction of the living room. In OOP, the Dementor attack on Dudley. Subsequent references in the books appear to indicate that the Dursleys memories have not been modified however. In POA (p.44), when Harry meets Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron, the Minister tells him that Marjorie Dursley's memory has been modified so that she "has no recollection of the incident at all." There's no mention of other memory modification and Fudge later tells Harry, "I won't deny that they are extremely angry..." Had their memories been modified, they would presumably have nothing (other than their general anger at Harry's presence) to be angry about. At the end of OOP, when Arthur Weasley leads Harry and his entourage up to the Dursleys, he greets Vernon "pleasantly" with "You might remember me, my name's Arthur Weasley." This is followed by this line: "As Mr. Weasley had demolished most of the Dursleys' living room two years previously, Harry would have been very surprised if Uncle Vernon had forgotten him." (p.765) Now, it's true that this is Harry's impression, and we don't really know whether the Dursleys' reaction (Vernon turns "a deeper shade of puce," Petunia looks "frightened and embarrassed" and Dudley tried and failed to look "small and insignificant")to Arthur and the group really relates to the incident Harry remembers. But the passage implies that they may remember Arthur's visit. I'm wondering why the Ministry doesn't modify the Dursleys' memories. Aunt Marge may not remember being blown up, but I would imagine the other three Dursleys would have difficulty putting it out of their minds at future family gatherings. Is this entirely because Vernon and Petunia are Harry's legal guardians (and would this therefore apply to all muggle parents of young wizards and witches as well)? Or is it Harry-specific? Has someone (Fudge? Dumbledore?) determined that it would be more dangerous for Harry and/or the Dursleys for these memories to be modified? Presumably there's a reason for Petunia to remember Dementors and Azkaban; perhaps these "domestic incidents" are also important enough that they should be remembered? Or maybe...the Dursleys will do such a good job of repressing their own memories of such events that the charm is unnecessary? Anyway, I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has theories on this point. Eustace_Scrubb From jasv132002 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 15 03:30:14 2004 From: jasv132002 at yahoo.ca (Jacinda van der Merwe) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115033014.60222.qmail@web41613.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88818 Regarding Harry seeing his father in the penceive and deducing he is a Gryffindor. I don't think he will make such a huge mistake and from JKR's side, that would be quite the false trail to lead us on. She doesn't cheat. They will have to explain, in great detail why Harry mistakenly tought his father was a Gryffindor. What I would like to know though (I missed the origin of the discussion) is what repercussions would it have if James, Sirius, Lupin and Peter were in fact Slytherin? SabrinaPotter (no relation to 'the boy who lived') From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 15:38:45 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:38:45 -0000 Subject: From the other side : Part 1 : Zacharias Smith and other lambda students Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88819 Hi all ! I'm feeling horribly mischievous those days. So I've decided to start a series of posts about how people other than Harry's friends might see him. So my first choice was all those Hogwarts students that don't happen to be Harry's friends, all those Zacharias Smithes. Smith might have been very annoying and aggressive towards Harry, but believe me, he had good reasons to be so !! When Harry defeats LV, the oldest of his future schoolmates are barely 8. They might still remember how awful the pre-Harry days were. But even if they don't, they and all of Harry's schoolmates (except for the Muggle-borns of course) get raised with the knowledge that Harry Potter saved the world. He got rid of LV and brought happiness back into the world. BUT ! The first problem is that nobody knows EXACTLY what happened. They just know that LV went to the Potters' home, killed James and Lily, and disappeared, living a destroyed house and a baby Harry alive and scarred. So they all suppose that LV tried to kill Harry, but failed somehow and was killed in return. From that, anyone can invent anything to explain what happened, and I guess many students heard their parents extrapolate weird theories, many of them not too nice for Harry. None of them came to school and met Harry with a neutral mind. They already had their own idea of who and what Harry was. So anyway, someday Harry turns 11 and goes to school. Well I guess it's like having Madonna's daughter in school with you : you would gape at her like mad at first. And you would keep an eye on her all the time. I mean, she's Madonna's daughter ! And he's Harry Potter !! So let's see what he's like, right ? And what IS he like ? Physically, he's nothing special. Neither does he hold himself in any special way. He just goes around like he doesn't know he's Harry Potter. Ah, but wait ! You are going to remind me that he doesn't know that, right ? But that's something only we readers know. I don't think anyone else knows that Harry Potter was raised by his Muggle family who didn't tell him anything about himself. So all the kids just assume that he knows he's a legend, and they don't understand why he acts so normally. He doesn't go around showing off, he doesn't demonstrate his magical abilities all over the place, he doesn't talk about his past, he doesn't entertain a court of admirers. He doesn't act like most kids think they would act if they were as famous as he is. So much so that it might become doubtful that he's actually the legendary Harry Potter. Then there's the problem of who he's friend with. Namely : Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. Ron Weasley is poor, not good-looking, not popular, with no particular attractive trait. So why does famous and rich Harry Potter associate with him ? Why doesn't he go for the rich and important kids, like Draco Malfoy, for example ? As for Hermione, well, she's famous for being a highly annoying know- it-all. Nobody can stand her, so why does Harry put up with her ? Why doesn't he send her packing ? And there's Hagrid too : big, scary, weird Hagrid. What does Harry see in him ? We readers know the answers to those questions, but there's simply no way Harry's schoolmates could know them too. So, in their eyes, Harry's behaviour is highly peculiar. And kids don't like weird people, oh no they don't ! But things would get okay in the end, if strange things didn't keep happening to Harry. For example, how would any kid react if Madonna's daughter was granted very special privileges, that noone else ever gets ? They would get jealous and hurt, right ? They couldn't help thinking that she got them because she's famous, right ? And they'd be angry at her. Well, Harry got on the Quidditch team while still in first year, which is strictly against school rules, and without a public tryout what's more... Of course, when he gets to play a match, everyone can see that he is really talented, but that doesn't take away the stench of privilege. Then let's get at the end of the first year. Everything was going fine, everyone was quite okay by now with Harry. Hey, he'd even been put into detention once ! And then bam ! He gets into some kind of troubles, nobody knows what exactly (that's very important : the kids do NOT know anything about Quirrellmort and the Philosophical Stone), but a teacher gets killed in the process. And instead of being punished, Harry gets rewarded instead ! And not just Harry either, but his pals too ! Hah, it pays to be in Harry's good graces, apparently ! And obviously, Harry is Dumbledore's pet : first the Quidditch team, and now 50 points for killing a teacher ! By the beginning of the second year, the kids have cooled down a bit, but Colin Creevey's fan attitude towards Harry must get on the nerves of many, not just Draco. And Harry doesn't help by revealing that he's a Parselmouth and setting a snake on a fellow student. But anyway, everything goes pretty fine still, and then suddenly everything goes wrong again. On Halloween night, Mrs Norris gets petrified, and a strange message about a Chamber of Secrets and the Heir of Slytherin is left on the wall. And who is found right on the spot ? Harry Potter ! Well, any kid can add 2 and 2 and come up with 4 : Harry Potter is the Heir of Slytherin, that's why LV couldn't kill him. So after having been awed, jealous, angry or disgusted, now the kids are scared of Harry. And at the end of the year, it won't help that Harry plays his favorite trick again, getting into some kind of mysterious trouble and harming a teacher, only to be rewarded by Dumbledore... In the third year, the kids have to deal with the presence of Dementors and the constant menace of being attacked by a murderous madman, all of it just because of Harry's presence in the castle. In the fourth year, Harry once again is granted an enormous privilege, when he is allowed to participate in the Triwizard Tournament despite being too young. Most kids probably changed their mind after the First Task, as Ron did, but still... As an aside, I have to say that Hermione probably didn't improve her reputation when she showed up at Krum's arm for the Yule Ball. How was anyone supposed to believe that she got that honour without cheating ? But she's Harry Potter's friend, she can get away with anything. And let's not forget Rita Skeeter and her nice articles. At first Harry tries to get everyone's sympathy by playing the role of the poor sad little boy, which probably went on the nerves of many of his schoolmates, who know better than to pity him. And then they probably relished that article about Scarlet Woman Hermione, which strengthened the contempt many had towards her. But the worst came with the Delusional Harry article, which was unfortunately based on a reality many students had witnessed (Harry acting weirdly every now and then and pretending his scar hurt), and thus only reinforced their distrust of him. Did I mention that Harry also finds another powerful ally, in Fake! Moody, who publicly takes his defense against Malfoy ? Another reason for jealousy. And then there's the great mess of the last task. Harry mysteriously disappears with Cedric for some time, and then when they come back, Harry is badly mangled and Cedric is dead. Well I would be thoroughly surprised if no student supposed that Harry somehow teleported Cedric and himself somewhere quiet when he saw he was going to tie-in with Cedric, in order to "convince" him to let Harry win. But things went wrong, and Cedric died. After all, Harry already disposed of LV, killed Quirrell and sent Lockhart to St Mungo's, so he wouldn't care much about harming a fellow student, would he ? That is, until Dumbledore's speech, where he pretends, out of the blue, that Cedric was killed by... LV !? How are the kids supposed to believe that, when it is so much more logical, and so much easier, to simply believe that Dumbledore is trying to cover up Harry's misdeed, once again. After all, that wouldn't be the first time. And everyone knows that Harry is DD's pet. Not to mention that none of them has any proof to present. After a very calm summer (where ever is LV, huh ?), everyone goes back to school and discovers that both Harry's friends have been made Prefects. Coincidence ? Yeah, sure... As for Harry himself, he is moodier and less sympathetic than ever, he keeps ranting about LV and having more "my scar hurts and LV is alive" episodes, which doesn't help improve his public image. And, well, going out with his "victim"'s girlfriend is not the most tasteful thing he could have done... Let's get to the DA. It's not Harry who sets it up, it's Hermione. But people come for Harry. They want to get some explanation, they want to understand him a bit better, and this seems like the perfect opportunity. Except that Harry refuses point-blank to explain anything and gets even deeper in his role of the dark weird kid. Most DA candidates would probably have opted out if they hadn't been forced one way or another (friend, girlfriend, pride...). And then Hermione gets them to sign that paper. Nice trap, huh ? But all in all, things go pretty well during the training sessions, even if Harry can't help throwing LV's name in the conversation every now and then, as if noone knew by that time that this is just a trick. Which then brings the question : does Harry have any hidden agenda for creating the DA ? I won't go into the end-of-year events, because I would need to know how things are handled by DD and the MoM. Well, that were only a few examples, but honestly, dear readers (if anyone actually read that far :-), can't you see by now why Harry is less-than-loved in his own school ? He never made any effort to be liked, and had many circumstances going against him : DD's love for him, accidents, LV's hidden existence, etc... but he never cared about explaining anything. Had I been Marrietta what's-her-name, I'm not sure I wouldn't have reported such a strange and unreliable schoolmate, and probably dangerous too, to the first apparently sane and impartial person in power to come to the school... Next, I'd like to deal with the Slytherins ( why they definitely have very good reasons for hating Harry), and Fudge and the WW ( why they have very good reasons not to believe Harry, and why they were quite right in trying to sqaush him). Interested, anyone ? Del From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 14 15:08:24 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:08:24 -0000 Subject: Hatching a Basilisk (Re: Digest Number 4138) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88820 Frost wrote: > Actually, according to FB it's a chicken egg on a dung heap Kneazy: > I'm more interested in your mention of the entry in > FBaWTFT. Mine doesn't mention dung heaps at all, just a > chicken egg beneath a toad, as does CoS. > > Have we found a variation between editions? If so, what > else is changed? Errr, nope. THe error was mine. Alas, I don't have to wait to be aged to loose my mind. :p I was born without one. It would seem that along with "Herpo the Foul" I somehow twisted in a dung heap of some sort. Sorry about the confusion. ^_^ Frost From cowjock13 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 15:44:55 2004 From: cowjock13 at yahoo.com (cowjock13) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:44:55 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods, Half-Bloods, Pure Bloods, and Genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88821 Julie wrote: > How is magic passed down genetically? > > 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that > there are squibs and mudbloods. > 2. It cannot be complete recessive, > given that there are halfbloods. > 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? > 4. Is magic genetic at all? I am actually a half-way geneticist (no, really!), and couldn't resist de-cloaking for this one (Geek alert!). It's likely not a simple Mendelian characteristic. A multi-loci operon would function nicely to give the "shades" of intermediate power ranging from non-existent (muggle) to extraordinarily powerful (full wiz). Very similar to what we are seeing from the human genome project as to familial susceptibility to cancer and other diseases. Since it appears to run in some families and "pop up" in others, it would appear to be genetic, or as much as we can tell from the limited anecdotal evidence JKR has presented thus far. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 16:00:35 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:00:35 -0000 Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: <20040115033014.60222.qmail@web41613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88822 SabrinaPotter wrote: > Regarding Harry seeing his father in the penceive and deducing he > is a Gryffindor. I don't think he will make such a huge mistake > and from JKR's side, that would be quite the false trail to lead us > on. She doesn't cheat. They will have to explain, in great detail > why Harry mistakenly tought his father was a Gryffindor. As others have pointed out, Harry might just have assumed that his father was a Gryffindor. Harry is very good at making false assumptions, and he's not good at all at asking for information. It took him 5 years and an accident to discover that Snape indeed had a good reason to dislike his father. He always simply assumed that Snape was wrong and his father was an angel, and he never truly bothered to ask for more. However, it could be that James was indeed in Gryffindor. But not necessarily Sirius, and it would affect Harry just as much to learn that his beloved godfather was a Slytherin. > What I would like to know though (I missed the origin of the > discussion) is what repercussions would it have if James, Sirius, > Lupin and Peter were in fact Slytherin? I think this is the only important question, and the answer to "why hasn't JKR stated clearly which House the Marauders belonged to yet ?". I think the most obvious answer would be that Harry would be immensely shocked. He still has a very black-and-white vision, an "us- against-them" mindset, when it comes to Slytherins. It might do him lots of good to discover that either Sirius and/or James was in Slytherin. He needs to learn to stop separating the world in 2 categories, including at school. I would just love to have Harry ranting against the Slytherins in front of Lupin, and then have Lupin lose patience with that childish behaviour and snap "You know Harry, Sirius and I were in Slytherin !" That would teach him so much about group discrimination ! Or even better yet : Snape whispering to Harry that "Lupin and Black were in Slytherin with me, you know, Potter". Harry couldn't look Snape in the eye for a week after that ! (I'm not a Snape fan, but Harry gets even more on my nerves than Snape sometimes). Del From hufflepuff at pop.com.br Wed Jan 14 12:45:58 2004 From: hufflepuff at pop.com.br (hufflepuff0305) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:45:58 -0000 Subject: New guy, very long replys! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88823 Almar? for everyone in HPforGrownups: I'm F?bio Costa (nicknamed: Samwise Weasley), and I'm a 25-years-old HP fan! I have read all the five books, including "Order of Phoenix", and I have other hobbys: Star Wars, Middle-Earth, RPG and Linux OS. I wanna only to make some warnings first about me: 1-) I don't have home Internet connection, so my replies will be long and about old topics. S?, anyone that don't wanna to read, please only ignore that... 2-) I don't speak English as first language (I'm Brazilian, so I speak Portuguese), so please sorry myself about my poor English; ====================================================================== == About: Luna's future visions ====================================================================== == "She is not a Seer in the way Trelawney is, spitting out predicitions/prophecies at random moments and not remembering having ever said them afterwards. Maybe there's another form to Seeing." (Alice) I believe that, at the correct level, something like LotR's Aragorn's "track-reading". Luna senses something in the air and catches glimpses of the future. This could be a magical talent (something like Trelawney's visions and Parseltongue) or could be a wicked benefit that Luna earn from her's wicked world-vision. ====================================================================== == About: Hermione's skepticism ====================================================================== == "Actually, given her native skepticism and Muggle upbringing, I'm surprised that she didn't start out disbelieving in dragons and unicorns. Maybe the difference is that the latter two are staples of mythology and/or folklore and therefore easier to believe in--or she read about them in her textbooks the summer before attending Hogwarts. How does she *know* there's no such thing as a heliopath? Just the fact that she's never seen one doesn't mean they don't exist. For all we know, the WW may think there's no such thing as a microbe or a molecule because they don't study biology or physics at Hogwarts." (Carol) I believe that's okay for Hermione believe in everything that is written in books. It's a sort-of materialistical vision from Hermione, and that's okay for a 20th-century muggle-born witch. Dragons, and unicorns are magical beasts that is describben in so much sources of information (AKA: books), so Hermione has no doubt about its existence. But, heliopaths? She had never heard of heliopaths before Luna's talk about it. The same is true for crumpled hornshacks (is really this?) and tresthals (but, in the end, Hermione believes - or, more exactly, discover - that thresthals are real). The same could be true about microbe or molecules: the WW sciences is medieval at least. Phlogistons, earth in the center of Solar System, no knowledge about Newtonian Physics (atom? what is that?), etc... But, there's some examples against this in CoS, when there's a influenza epidemic in Hogwarts and Madam Pomfrey knows about that... Okay, that's no cancer, AIDS, or even tuberculosis, but that's okay for me to believe that WW has finding some "parallel development", where every muggle development has a parallel wizard development. ====================================================================== == About: Democratic equillibrum ====================================================================== == "I do notice that in many fanfics that American authors tend to introduce US High School elements which are definitely not part of canon!" (Easleyweasley) Okay... for Hogwarts definitely cheerleaders and mascots are totally non-sense, BUT when you thinking in how JK develop Hogwarts (as a mirror of traditional UK schools) you could imagine that a USA school will have cheerleaders and mascots as part of Quidditch games. For example: here in Brazil I believe that Wizardry Schools wouldn't be internal, because the Brazilian Schools aren't internal (very, very, very few schools are internal...). The same is true about everything: opinions about muggles and muggle artifacts, magical creatures, etc... ====================================================================== == About: The End of Voldemort ====================================================================== == "I agree that the prophecy says ' vanquish' and this does not automatically mean 'kill'. But a sentence from OOTP goes something like this--- either way his life would in murder(quoting from memory). So Harry will have to kill Voldemort or will be killed himself." (Spang) I believe that Voldemort will not be killed, but: 1-) Will be at some way turned in a muggle (that's should be worse than death for someone that believe that muggles are nothing...), or; 2-) Will be utterly destroyed (more or less like Sauron's defeat in LotR), so utterly that's will be like he never existed; When the prophecy says "vanquish", that's "vanquish", in the sense of a sort of utterly, totally obliteration! Not a death, but a total obliteration, worst than a dementor's kiss! i don't know what should be this, but that will be a very, VERY bad thing! ====================================================================== == About: Killing is necessary? (or: Harry will Kill?) ====================================================================== == "I don't want Harry to have to kill, but in a war, how is someone of his age and stature (relating to the prophecy of course) supposed to avoid it? JKR makes a point of making her fantasy world very realistic, and after all, it's boys a few years older than Harry's age that get shipped to the front in real world war." (Meri) Okay, you're right about this... But I believe that Harry will not kill indiscriminately (if ever). You may say that he has "justifications" like Sirius' death (yep, I believe that Sirius is completely, totally, utterly dead!), but Harry will not undergrade himself at the levels of D.E. I believe that, at some way, Harry will be learn something like Gandalf and Frodo's Bag End dialog in the start of LotR, where Gandalf says Frodo to not want that his enemies dies! ====================================================================== == About: Percy is evil? ====================================================================== == "Percy is somewhat of a bad seed, yes, but I don't think he's really evil. He may not agree with his family's views, but to say that Percy will have something to do with the downfall of a member of his own family is carrying the theory out too far. I think that, though he is quite ambitious, Percy is inherently a good guy doing what he feels is morally correct. Thus said, I can't support the idea that Percy is evil." (Ali) I don't think so... I didn't like the Percy's snobby posture in OotP, and I didn't like the posture of him in "man-walking" people, using people to socially ascend. I don't know the Percy's future, but, at some way, he will pay very, very costly for each Molly's tear and Arthur's frenzy rages! Percy has used for very Slytherin (IMHO) subterfuges to gain power in Ministry, including humillating Harry, kicking has father as a dog, and so on... I surely believed before OotP that Percy is snobby, but good at heart. But OotP placed Percy Weasley in my personal HP "Hall of Shame" (AKA: my personal "Harry Potter Characters that we love to hate" list) "This, I think, is the real Percy, who would welcome a return to his family *if only* they'd recognize his achievements and apologize for insulting him. Ron, too, has trouble saying that he's sorry and has to wait for the other person to say it first." (Carol) I don't believe that, at any time, Percy will apologize for your family. Percy is so self-made to that (he believe that "se basta" - he need only himself). The only *real* Percy's loyalty is with himself. He will never make something disloyal, but only to mantain the curtain for the fools of the Ministry. ====================================================================== == About: Ron and Strategy ====================================================================== == "Ron is going to be the leader for the army of children who will ultimately be responsible for beating Voldemort's gang. The children will be the heroes, not the adults! Ron will gain more confidence as the books progress. " (vmonte) Ron has strategy, Hermione has logic, Harry has charisma. The perfect combo! And with adds of Neville, Ginny, Luna and the DA the things will be very bad for D.E. Ron will not win alone. He's a chess player: he knows that no piece win a victory alone (you need at least the king and a tower or the queen to win a chess play: that's chess finishing theory). Ron's value will be enhanced more and more, and when Ron achieve the auto-confidency of a Bill or Charlie, Ron will surprise everyone. ====================================================================== == About: Hufflepuff ====================================================================== == "Poor Hufflepuff! In the defense of the house no one wants to belong to, it is most certainly not the remedial dumping ground of Hogwarts!" (Mandy) Talk by yourselves! I'm a Hufflepuff at heart! Hufflepuff is the more loyal of the houses! The behaviors of hufflepuffs in HP prove that: they feared Harry when they believe that he was the Slytherin Heir, and they angried himselves when Harry "makes his way" in the Triwizard! The Hufflepuff's symbol is a proof of that! AFAIK, the badger is a cute and calm animal, so long is not provoked or another of her pack is provoked. But do that, and the entire badger pack flies in a frenzy rage! Hufflepuffs isn't intrinsically dumb! They're more dedicated (even only to undercover it dumbness) and are hard-workers. That's my feeling about Hufflepuff, and that's because that feeling that I'm, even being as smart as a Ravenclaw, a Hufflepuff at heart and at marrowbone's core! ====================================================================== == About: Snape as DADA teacher ====================================================================== == "What do you think the reason is? What is it about the Defense Against the Dark Arts job that will bring out the evil in Snape?" (Sawsan_issa) Simply enought: he will teach not only DADA, but how to actively use the Dark Arts (like Karkaroff's Durmstrang). Okay, that's non-sense thinking that Snape will make a mass production of proto-D.E. BUT... The real Snape will be catched again by the Siren's Call of the evil... More or less like Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars ("Quicker... Easier... More Seductive..." - Yoda). That's my opinion. ====================================================================== == About: Hermione's Worse Fear ====================================================================== == "So, what is Hermione's greatest fear, and why wouldn't Lupin allow that to materialize in the classroom? How would he know what her greatest fear is?" (Karen) Hermione's fear is to be dumb! This is proven in the DADA exam when she's coming crying saying that McGonagall has said she was fired in everything! (Obviously, this was her Boggart's personification!). Boggarts impersonate the fear. For example: fear of night=a light- eating darkness growing and growing... That's no real association between the Boggart's form and person's fear, except when the case (like Ron's: spider, or Harry's: dementors). ====================================================================== == About: Neville's Real Power ====================================================================== == "His ego of course by now is pretty much shot, but what if now when he get's his own wand, his powers channel more effectively. Would it be enough to get his self esteem up? More on equal footing with the others? What do you think of the theory?" (Crissy) Sure would! Neville will prove that he isn't no longer the clumsy boy that entered Hogwarts! I believe thar Neville's Real Power will come now, with a "wand chosed him". And, if my suspects are true, that will be a Dragon-Ball Z Super Sayajin Level II power! ;-) (even more that he knows that Bellatrix Lestrange had tortured her fathers' to the madness!) "It's entirely possible that Neville will greatly improve in his magic abilities NOT because he gets a new wand that's a 'proper fit', but because he won't have the legacy of his dad (in the form of his dad's wand) hanging over him at every moment making him feel inadequate by comparison. His family has obviously accentuated his "lack of magical ability" frequently and talked about it in front of Neville for years. Neville knows he's a disappointment to his relatives and knows they don't feel he comes even close to his mom or dad as a wizard. If a new wand makes Neville realize that he's free to be himself and he doesn't HAVE to try to measure up to his father all the time.... Neville will be a truly new and exciting character to watch. Imagine the possibilities...." I bet all my pots in Neville. He was a very interesting character since SS/PS: he was so clumsy to exist! :o) But, with time and reading, I have noted that Neville's not in his best form, psychologically speaking: he has so much "family tradition" to overpass! Now, without his father's wand (and with a wand by himself), he will open so much his potential. Even against all odds, and considering the father's wand, Neville has the first (except for Hermione) to cast a good Patronus (?) charm, and he was developing very speedy in the DA trainings. And that's should be counted as a good point for Neville. And note that Neville's progression starts when Draco talks something about St' Mungus! ====================================================================== == About: Harry Making plans! ====================================================================== == "But now that Harry knows, will he start thinking about what might happen, how he might defeat Voldemort, make plans, learn new skills, prepare himself? Or will he just wait for Voldemort to turn up and rely on last minute luck and courage under fire?" (Spang) Sure Harry will make some plans and learn good skills! He has so much suffering and death (Cedric, Sirius) to know that impulsiveness could be good, but it's not alweys good! He will learn how to be a good leader (or, btter say, a Better Leader), how to trust in comrades and how to place each one in his correct place of the good/evil balance. Namari? ====================================================================== Samwise Weasley The Burrow, Bag Road, 9 3/4 Borda da Mata - MG - Brazil Nick: Sam_Weasley hufflepuff at pop.com.br ICQ #:173799674 samwiseweasley at pop.com.br MSN: hufflepuffbr at hotmail.com Linux User #328087 ====================================================================== HPCode (1.1) H PS++COS+++POA+++GOF+++*OOTP+++ FF++ QB CH+++DD+++HB++HM+PO++TR+++AR+++AT+++*MS+++ NL/Gi-BW/Fl-RB/Ol-RW/He-HP/Lu-RL/To HPCode - www.hogwarts-library.net/common/hpcode.html From cubs9911 at aol.com Thu Jan 15 16:06:25 2004 From: cubs9911 at aol.com (cubs99111) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:06:25 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88824 Eustace_Scrubb wrote: > I'm wondering why the Ministry doesn't modify the > Dursleys' memories. > > Aunt Marge may not remember being blown up, but I would imagine the > other three Dursleys would have difficulty putting it out of their > minds at future family gatherings. Well, I think the answer is the Petunia, Vernon, and Dudley already know that Harry is a wizard. They already know that magic exsits. They would have to modify Aunt Marge's memory because she doesn't know about the magical world and would probably have a nervous breakdown if they didn't. Although it might be better for Harry if the Dursley's didn't remember a few things, there is just no reason to do a memory charm on them. They already know about the wizarding world and they are not about to tell anyone about it. JR From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 16:25:55 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:25:55 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised as prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "suehpfan" wrote: > Hello everyone, my first post. I have been lurking for a while and > would like to add my two knuts to the posts about the MoE. It seems > to me that though Ron's vision of himself is more easily demonstrated > in his life, Quiditch captain, Head Boy, etc. Harry's is equally > profectic. As many have noted here, he cannot, without dying > himself, join his biological family. However, at the end on OotP he > is,in fact, surrounded by his "family". > > "Harry nodded. He somehow could not find words to tell them what it > meant to him, to see them all ranged there, on his side." OotP pg. > 870 American edition. > > It can also be said that he was "surrounded" by his family, his > parents anyway, in the cage at the end of GoF. When his parents came > out of Voldemort's wand and protected him long enough for him to get > away. (Sorry, don't have GoF handy to check the page number.) > > Though I agree that the mirror is neither the truth nor a real > predictor of the future, it seems that since both boys came to the > MoE with a basically "pure heart" (Quirrel did not) it gave them a > sort of guide post to reach for what their hearts desired. > > I will go back to lurking quietly. > > Suehpfan I think that you make a good point: that Harry is starting to realize that blood does not mean family. He is starting to understand that there are so many people who care about him that are not directly related to him that I am hoping that he won't be so put out by the Dursleys any more, though ever since PoA he hasn't really taken their brand of abuse sitting down. I am really hoping that the rest of Ron's visions in the mirror come true: that he becomes the best of all the Weasley brothers and that he achieves some success outside of Harry's shadow. And though I would certainly be upset if Harry died at the end of Book 7, I can't think of a more emotional ending than Harry being welcomed into the wizard version of the afterlife by his mum and dad. Meri From rredordead at aol.com Thu Jan 15 16:50:04 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:50:04 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88826 > Inge wrote: > I wondered if Petunia ever suspected Dudley to be a wizard. Wondering also when one can know for sure if one's child is a > wizard/witch or not. Is it very early in the childs life or isn't it until the letter from Hogwarts arrives? > In Harry's case it seems it was known wizardwide that he was actually born to be a wizard since his name had been in the books at Hogwarts since his birth. > But what about Neville? Didn't his grandmother suspect him to be a > squib? > And Hermione? Was she in the books of Hogwarts since birth or didn't her name show up till she turned 11? > So when does it come clear that a wizard is a wizard? Mandy here: I believe that the name goes in on birth and it is very clear to the MoM that a child is born either magical or not. As for latent witches/wizards, their names must go down too, but perhaps only when they reach their potential for magic. Of course it is too late for them to go to Hogwarts, but they must be approached and brought in to the WW in they desire to be. I was just reminded of the first Matrix movie, Neo was brought out of the Matrix much older then normal, (because he was the One) but Morpheus did state that the older you are when you come out the harder it is for you to adjust to the real world. But I digress.... I imagine that most magical families simply assume their offspring are going to be magical. Why think otherwise? And if the child fails to show any magical inclinations before 11, as in Neville's case, measures are taken to determine if the child is magical or not. Much like if a child is born deaf, you may not know that there is anything wrong with the child at first, but when you begin to suspect there is a problem and take the child to a doctor to determining what is wrong. The fact the Neville's family risked his life to find out that he was not a Squib, implies that it is either not possible, or very difficult, to call the ministry and find out if the child's name is down in 'The Book' or not. Interestingly the Book of Names, which is essential to the WW to determine and find all magical children, is itself, perpetuating their 'them and us' culture right from birth. It is not surprising to me that the Purebloods believe themselves superior when you are selected at birth based solely on your genes, and not on ability or learned behavior. But to all Wizards and Witches, and not just Purebloods, it must be devastating not to have their child listed. After all who wouldn't want their child to be like itself. Of course, most parents would still love and care for a squib child, but it must carry stigma resulting in whispers of pity from their surrounding community. In much the same way the birth of a disabled child is treated in our communities. We admire the parents who raise and love a disabled child but secretly hope, and believe that it won't happen to us. Mandy. From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 17:43:45 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:43:45 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione/Underage magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88827 Carol wrote > Harry, OTOH, seems to be under constant surveillance by both the Order > and the MoM. Whatever happens to him, even the move from the cupboard > under the stairs to the smallest bedroom is instantly known by someone > in the WW (Dumbledore?). Interestingly, one of the letters from the > MoM states that "hover charm was performed" (passive voice), which > leads me to wonder if the writer (Mafalda Hopkirk?) knew that Harry > hadn't performed it. > Julie: Your mention of the passive voice indicating that a "hover charm was performed" made me wonder if the MoM cannot detect magic done by House Elves. If not, what implications does this have? Any ideas? From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jan 15 17:43:30 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:43:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Diary, map and Arthur Weasley's warning References: Message-ID: <000701c3db8f$4f92e8a0$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88828 > Hi there! > > The discussion about the Marauder's Map reminds me of a speculation I > had. At the end of CS Arthur Weasley reminds Ginny that one shouldn't > trust a thinking thing when one cannot see where it keeps its brain. > > Where does the Sorting Hat keep its brain anyway (since I believe it's > trustworthy it should be visible somehow)? > > Bye Peter Hmm, I think the "brain" of a sentient object is, metaphorically speaking, the brain of its creator (or creators). So, the diaries brain was Tom Riddle, then the map's are the Marauders and the hat's is Godric Gryffindor. Now, we know Tom Riddle isn't trustworthy. Is GG? Most likely. What about the Marauders? Hmmm, I don't think that one is clear cut. One of the Marauders has already turned out to be a traitor. One has spent most of his adult life in prison and thus hasn't had a chance to outgrow his teenage years. One is dead. Most importantly, the last one, who so far appears to be the most mature and trustworthy of the bunch, gave Harry an explicit warning not to trust the map because its creators would love to cause some mischief! In summary, I don't think any of these objects, even those created by the "good guys", are particularly trustworthy. Alina, who would be proud to be a Hufflepuff. "Said Hufflepuff, 'I'll teach the lot, And treat them just the same.'" From CoyotesChild at charter.net Thu Jan 15 17:41:38 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:41:38 -0600 Subject: Forms of Prophecy Message-ID: <000201c3db8e$d4584720$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88829 Iggy, de-cloaking for a long minute: Ok all, I was puttering around and reading through my copy of the "Beyond the Supernatural" rulebook from Palladium Games, and found the section on Divination. I thought I'd send this in to the list since, in my experience, Palladium Games is *very* thorough and accurate in their research. Here's what they have listed as examples... some we have seen in the Harry Potter books, and some we haven't. (Which also makes me wonder if they cover some of them in the advanced divination classes.) I will add in a comment or two (bracketed by "*"), but everything else is from the "Beyond the Supernatural" rulebook by Randy McCall & Kevin Siembieda. Please also realize that, these are listed only in their pertaining to divination. Some aspects, like ones I point out on occasion, are not divinatory aspects, so aren't listed in this section of the book. Iggy McSnurd (Who realizes that he is still posting a bit to the main list, but is keeping cloaked unless something *really* sparks his interest.) DIVINATION FORMS TABLE: (found in "Beyond the Supernatural", 1988 ed., pgs. 86-87) Arithmancy: The use of numbers, either in patterns which reoccur around the person or selected randomly, to tell their past or predict their future. See also Numerology. (*It's funny that this is Hermione's favorite class aside from transfiguration, and it's a form of divination... which she has little respect for. It should also be noted, however, that Arithmancy is also a form of magic that utilizes magical formulae or "magic squares" to invoke magical power, which is why this aspect probably isn't listed in this divination chart... I would also like to note that, going through the files on the OT-Chatter site, I spotted a theory someone had about the numbers 6, 12, and 24 appearing often in the books and giving hints. This is a good example of an Arithmantic theory.*) Astragalomancy: Divination by the use of dice or marked pieces of bone. This technique includes the Viking system of "casting the runes" and the casting of human and animal knucklebones used by African witch doctors. Belomancy: Foretelling the future by throwing arrows to the ground and observing the pattern they form. This particular technique would be well suited to primitive or modern, bow-using cultures. Cartomancy: This form of divination is done literally by the "turn of a card." It uses special decks of cards, known as Tarot, but can also be done with a regular deck of playing cards. Each card is ascribed a specific meaning and are laid in a pattern. Meditation on the cards and the pattern they form give the divination. Cartomancy has always been one of the most popular kinds of fortune-telling and has existed from the time of the Pharaohs of Egypt. (*Personally, I use the "Tarot of the Cat People" rather than the more widely known "Ryder - Waite Tarot Deck." For me, it's not only prettier, but it's easier for me to tune into the Cat People deck. I'm also a firm believer that you can "pull" an "advice" card when you need it as a single card... but that you never do an actual reading for yourself or your immediate family, since you are too close to the subject, which clouds and taints the reading.*) Cephalomancy: This divinatory skill uses the bumps and depressions which can be found on a person's skull to predict their future. It is vaguely related to Palmistry in that a person's entire future is supposed to be written on their body. (*It is a close relative of "Phrenology," which hypothesizes that you can use the bumps and depressions to indicate what kind of a person the subject is.*) Chiromancy: Also known as Palmistry, this art teaches the user to read the future in the lines found in the palms of the questioner's hands. Each line is supposed to govern one particular area of life, including Life, Love, and Fortune. (*Many purists believe that you can only accurately read the left hand, as it is closer to the heart and, therefore, shows a person's destiny and past more clearly. It is the same reason a Tarot reader will usually have you cut the deck with your left hand as well.*) Crystalomancy: Another very common form of divination, this technique uses a crystal ball as an aid for seeing into the future. There are many arguments among experts as to whether the answers/visions actually appear within the crystal or just within the mind of the seer, who uses the crystal only as a focus. (*Personally I believe that it's the second... a focus. IMHO, all forms of divination are methods to tap into one's inner sight, and to link with the spirit world or one's higher power for advice and insight. And this also goes for the forms I do, and have, practiced.*) Empromancy: This is divination by the studying of objects placed within a sacrificial fire, especially as to any shapes or forms seen in the smoke or fire itself. Geomancy: Divination by tossing pebbles on the ground and analyzing the pattern they form. The pebbles can either be special ceremonial stones, or they can simply be a handful of stones picked up on a beach. (*This is also the study of "lines of power", also known as "ley lines," "dragon lines," or "spirit lines." It is one of the most important forms of divination in many parts of Asia. In China, virtually no building is constructed without first consulting with a Geomancer to ensure that the building will not interfere with the harmony of these lines.*) Hydromancy: This skill requires the use of a small pool of water in which the seer analyses the ripples and disturbances of the pool itself. (*Some also feel that a "seer" can use a wide and shallow, silver basin when a pool is not available.*) Icthyomancy: Very popular in cultures which depend on fish for existence, this is divination by the examination of the entrails of a fish. Kleidomancy: By suspending a pendulum over an alphabet and asking questions, the pendulum is supposed to spell out the answers. A cousin to this skill today is the modern Ouija board. (*It's interesting to note that "oui" is French for "yes", and "ja" is German for "yes" as well...*) Lecanomancy: One of the most beautiful and most expensive of the divinatory arts, gems are dropped into still pools of water and the ripples they create are analyzed for hints about the future. Molybdomancy: This is divination by observing the pattern formed by molten lead after it has been dropped onto a smooth surface. Numerology: A very popular form of divination for the last hundred years or so, this art analyzes numbers connected to a person's name and date of birth, using a very stringent system for reducing alphabetical names to numbers. Pessomancy: This is divination by observing the size, shape, texture, etc., of a pebble drawn randomly from a pile. Phyllorhodomancy: Taking literally the old saw that each flower carries a message, this technique analyzes the pattern formed by the petals and leaves of a rose to divine the future. Pyromancy: According to practitioners of this technique, by analyzing a fire, paying special attention to the flames and any smoke or sparks, the future can be told. (*It is also said by others, that looking at shapes found in the embers of a still burning fire, and also by how long the image in the ember lasts, one can see more clearly. Personally, the ember method is one I follow a little more closely, while still paying attention to the rest. When you think about it... this, or empromancy, is what Dumbledore used in the office when he was watching the smoke and asking about "in essence divided?"*) Tasseography: This is the reading of tea leaves; a specialty of old women in tea houses and restaurants around the world. Xylomancy: This technique analyzes the pattern of spikes thrown on the ground. Somewhat related to Belomancy,, the best known example of this system is the Chinese "I Ching," or Book of Changes, system. From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 17:18:23 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:18:23 -0000 Subject: Marauders and Snape as roommates Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88830 Didn't Remus say somewhere that Snape was always sneaking after them, trying to figure out where they were going, leading to Sirius instructing Snape to follow Remus down the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack? Someone on here said that it would be difficult for students of different houses to determine if people were missing for any length of time. But, if Snape was their roommate, he'd surely notice, and become curious, right? liz vega From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 17:24:24 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:24:24 -0000 Subject: Voldemort was missing for 30 years, what was he doing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88831 The time between Hogwarts (Est. 1942) and Voldemorts rist to power (1970's) is thirty years! What was he doing for thirty years? Yes, yes, I know, magical transformations, associating with the worst of wizard kind, etc. But, that's a long time, regardless. He killed his father and grandparents either before 7th year, or right after. This would indicate that he didn't try to have a 'normal' life after Hogwarts. Also, his friends had already begun calling him Voldemort, another indication that he didn't run off and get married and have kids, something I know people have been speculating about, ie, Voldemort being a relative of Harry's. liz vega From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jan 15 18:16:34 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Timeline question. References: <5.0.2.1.2.20031229064456.00aae8f0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: <005701c3db93$fb58eb90$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88832 > Now, what my question is. When was this trial? Was it before the Potter's > attack or after? Did those two DE's stay in Azkaban for over a year before > the trial or not. > > Any thoughts? > > Tanya > The trial was after the fall of Voldemort. Remember, Crouch Jr. and co were tried for torturing the Longbottoms because they believed the couple possessed information about the disappeared Voldemort's whereabouts. Alina. "Said Hufflepuff, 'I'll teach the lot, And treat them just the same.'" From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jan 15 18:32:49 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:32:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) References: Message-ID: <008301c3db95$fadeeeb0$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88833 > Quote: > "'Snape was trying to save me?' > 'Of course,' said Quirrel coolly. 'Why do you think he wanted to > referee your next match? He was trying to make sure I dodn't do it > again... All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop > Gryffindor winning, he DID make himself unpopular...'" (PS p. 209 UK > Ed). > > Snape was willing to make himself unpopular to keep Harry safe... > Berit I'm pretty sure you're misreading that quote. Snape isn't making himself unpopular to make Harry safe. I think what Rowling meant there was that Snape was planning to make Harry safe, however because he was already unpopular with the rest of the staff, they assumed he was planning to sabotage the game. Alina. From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 15 18:47:49 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:47:49 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Timeline question. In-Reply-To: <005701c3db93$fb58eb90$a6a09c18@cr390913a> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20031229064456.00aae8f0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040116074602.025eee30@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88834 At 13:16 15/01/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Alina wrote: > >The trial was after the fall of Voldemort. Remember, Crouch Jr. and co were >tried for torturing the Longbottoms because they believed the couple >possessed information about the disappeared Voldemort's whereabouts. > >Alina. Tanya here Thanks for that. I was under the impression that there were 2 Trials, as it faded in and out between scenes. Long time to keep them locked up though pre trial. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abbet69 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 18:56:10 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:56:10 -0000 Subject: Teachers in the Order Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88835 I just don't think that Hagrid, McGonagall, and Snape are the only teachers in the Order as Harry thinks at the end of OoP. Flitwick is seen talking with McGonagall through out OoP, believes that LV is back as do most of the other teachers. He's the Head of Ravenclaw House, so he's smart enough to know to help out. Sprout as Head of Hufflepuff House doesn't need anymore of a reason to join than LV killing Cedric. I don't think that Trelawney or Binns is in the Order, just don't know enough about the other teachers. Abbet From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 18:51:48 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:51:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry's survival - JKR interviews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115185148.80084.qmail@web11304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88836 I think in some earlier interviews (before she got so media savvy!) JKR implied Harry's survival: Barnes&Noble.com September 8, 1999 Chat Transcript "I try never to say never, because it seems that every time I do I end up by doing the thing I've forsworn. So, there is a remote possibility that there will another Harry book, but at the present time I am planning only seven." The Connection 12 October 1999 J.K. Rowling Interview Transcript "And nothing about him after school? Probably not. I can't say more than that, but no, I planned 7 and I'm going to stick with 7, I think." Press Club 20 October 1999 J.K. Rowling Interview Transcript Transcript Courtesy Sugarquill.net's Transcription Project JKR: Um, at the moment, I definitely think I'm going to stop at seven, and I have to say, that will be really heartbreaking. Um, the only reason you'll ever see an eight Harry Potter book is if I really, in ten years time, burn to do another one. But at the moment, I think that's unlikely. But I try never to say never about anything, cause the moment I say "I will never," I do it next month. So, I just but I think not. I think I'll stop at seven. Scholastic.com February 2000 Online Chat "At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book." NBC Today Show October 2000 "Everyone assumes that there will be an adult life and maybe they're right. But no, I think I'm going to stop at seven. I'm not going to say "never another one." If I had a burning desire to do another one, I'd do it. But at the moment, I'm planning to stop at seven." ROLSHAN __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 19:27:06 2004 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:27:06 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > > Actually, I had taken a stance last week on this...and am under the firm belief that Severus is not a vamp, based on the original legends and folklore. As you have put it, Rowling tends to hearken back to the original myths and legends and rebuild from that ground base as opposed to 'borrowing' innovations to the legends that have occurred since their original inception (which , according to law, is plagiarism anyway--not something authors like to deal with on either end. Tends to make it difficult to put food on the table through their chosen profession). TigerPatronus here: Not wanting to quibble too much about legal definitions, but I will anyway. I think the term you're looking for here is "copyright infringment." "Plagerism" is a very specific legal term that means that you steal words, quite a few words, in their original order, from another source that is currently legally protected by copyright without permission. I don't think either Sophocles or Stoker are still under copyright. For example, if Shakespeare were still under copyright, and I wrote in a published story for which I received money and was not a satire of the original work: "O for a muse of fire that would transcend the brightest heaven of invention," (or the actual quote, I'm at work right now) that might be enough to get me tagged for plagerism. Usually, it takes pages and pages of incorporating another's work to set off alarm bells. (Not that I'm advocating such a horrendous deed.) And even so, post-modernism is tossing much of that definition out the proverbial courthouse window. Now, it's *reference.* And the referral is more important than the referent. Anyway, my point is that JKR is *not* plagerizing. She's utilizing ideas and images that are in the public domain and as referrals to other sources. You can't copyright ideas. The reason that JKR won the lawsuit against the Tanya Grotter people is that they were infringing on the Hogwarts/HP copyright, which Warner Brothers vigorously defended, not because they were committing plagerism, which AFAIK, they weren't. It may seem like a picky point, but plagerism is a crime and morally wrong. It bothers me when people toss it around. And I'm a nitpicker. Sorry for the nitpicking. > As for reproduction---that was not presented as a possibility until after I Am Legend (in which the vampirism is a type of bacterial infection, and not all the victims died of it...in fact, at the end of the book, there was a perfectly happy, healthy, living population of vamp-virus infected folks ready to make the world their own...). THere's also a fabulous book, I think it's by Brian Aldiss, that suggests that Stoker's vampirism was a metaphor for syphilis, passed by blood and sex, etc. > > > > Much as Rowling does with her own interpretations of the various legendary creatures she uses.... Ah! We agree! TK -- TigerPatronus From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 19:44:12 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:44:12 -0000 Subject: Timeline question. In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20031229064456.00aae8f0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88838 Tanya wrote: >I was reading the lexicon last night, and it said that in 1980 Karakroff and Dolohov are captured and sent to Azkaban. Now that is at least a year before LV's failed attack on HP. >In book 4, When Harry finds Dumbledore's pensieve and sees the court scenes. Karakroff outs Snape as a DE when he is trying to buy his way out. Now, Dumebldore verifies that Snape is a spy and no longer a DE, etc, etc. If LV was still at full strength at this time, something is definitely up. >Now, what my question is. When was this trial? Was it before the Potter's attack or after? Did those two DE's stay in Azkaban for over a year before the trial or not.< KathyK answers: All three scenes Harry sees in the pensieve (Karkaroff, Bagman, Lestranges & Crouch Jr) took place after LV's fall. Karkaroff, though, was initially captured and put in Azkaban before Voldemort's fall. What we see in the pensive is an already imprisoned and sentenced Karkaroff trying to get out using whatever information he has at hand. This is the reason why many of the names he tries to use are useless. He waited too long to turn on his fellow DE's. Now, the reasoning behind placing Karkaroff and Dolohov's captures in 1980, before LV's fall comes from this. In GoF, Ch 27 Sirius says: "Rosier and Wilkes-they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell." Voldemort fell in 1981. Pretty straightforward that they'd be listed as being killed in 1980. This helps us out with Karkaroff. In the pensieve he *names* Rosier as a Death Eater. Crouch informs him that he was caught shortly after Karkaroff-and that he was dead. If Rosier was killed the year before LV fell, and Karkaroff was captured shortly before Rosier, then Karkaroff must have been placed in Azkaban around the same time, 1980. The same reasoning applies to Dolohov's being caught as well. He was also captured shortly after Karkaroff. And Karkaroff also names him in his attempt to get out. And how do we know Karkaroff's pensieve appearance is post Voldemort's fall? In the Pensieve, Dumbledore says, GoF, Ch 30: "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk." Unless he's just being very confident about Voldemort's imminent downfall, it's pretty clear that we see Karkaroff after LV attacks the Potters. KathyK, who is sometimes confused by what the Lexicon says until she goes back and works it out for herself. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 19:47:16 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:47:16 -0000 Subject: Marauders and Snape as roommates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Didn't Remus say somewhere that Snape was always sneaking after > them, trying to figure out where they were going, leading to Sirius > instructing Snape to follow Remus down the tunnel to the Shrieking > Shack? > > Someone on here said that it would be difficult for students of > different houses to determine if people were missing for any length > of time. But, if Snape was their roommate, he'd surely notice, and > become curious, right? > > liz vega I don't want to be arguementative (and I am still waiting patiently for JKR to reveal the secrets of the Marauders' respective pasts) but if MWPP were in Gryffindor and Snape was in Slytherin Snape would still be able to notice if Moony went missing every month for the simple reason that the Gryffindors and Slytherins have classes together, most notably Potions and Care of Magical Creatures. I see no reason to assume that twenty years ago this system was any different than it is in Harry and Co.'s present. Of all the words that can be used to describe Snape, "stupid" and "oblivious" certainly aren't on that list. There is every reason to believe that Snape, just through four or five classes a week, would have noticed Lupin's abscences even if they weren't in the same house. Meri (who loathes Snape but almost wishes he had a cool nickname when he was a teenager - something better than "brainless git with abnormally large nose") From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 19:58:21 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Anne) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:58:21 -0000 Subject: Traditional Vampirism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88840 > > Not wanting to quibble too much about legal definitions, but I will > anyway. {Anne} Nah, I don't count this as a quibble--rather a thankful correction that will keep me from stepping in the some cowpatty the next time I open my big mouth...*g* I think the term you're looking for here is "copyright infringment." "Plagerism" is a very specific legal term that means that you steal words, quite a few words, in their original order, from another source that is currently legally protected by copyright without permission. {Anne} **Blushes** Oops...I knew that....really I did...too bad that at six in the morning I can't tell the difference...^^; > Anyway, my point is that JKR is *not* plagerizing. She's utilizing > ideas and images that are in the public domain and as referrals to > other sources. You can't copyright ideas. > It may seem like a picky point, but plagerism is a crime and morally wrong. It bothers me when people toss it around. And I'm a nitpicker. Sorry for the nitpicking. {Anne} NP....I have never had a problem with being corrected when I happen to be wrong--just when someone smacks me upside the head and starts to get personal...^^; Neither of which you did. I'm glad you clarified in fact... THere's also a fabulous book, I think it's by Brian Aldiss, that suggests that Stoker's vampirism was a metaphor for syphilis, passed by blood and sex, etc. {Anne} Cool, let me know what the title is if you ever remember...I would like to read it...(Am already looking for a copy of "Camilla" to read...have already noted through research that people speculate the story was influenced by Elizabeth Bathory and her infamous "blood baths" to keep her youg....) > Ah! We agree! {Anne} Cool....^^ **wanders back to work feeling better educated....** From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 19:56:50 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:56:50 -0000 Subject: Houses and classes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88841 I was just perusing a few of the posts speculating about the Marauders and Snape's school experiences, and something popped into my head: I was wondering why Harry and the other Gryffindors never have classes with the Ravenclaws. They have several classes with the Slytherins (Potions, Care of Magical Creatures and flying lessons) and have Herbology with the Hufflepuffs, and I have always assumed that the mysterious Astronomy lessons were like mass lectures with every student in the year participating, but why no specific Ravenclaw lessons? It seems odd to me that this happens. So here's a few questions (and excuse the ignorance of an American over the British school system): How are the houses paired up for lessons? (Because it seems to be the ones who will have the most conflict with each other. Good for dramatic writing, bad for learning.) Are houses in real British schools paired up like this? Does every house have classes with every other house? Thoughts? Meri (who loved participating in these discussions over her winter break from school, but will soon be returning to her corner of Lurkdom until spring break or summer!) From pennygbrooks at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 19:33:28 2004 From: pennygbrooks at yahoo.com (pennygbrooks) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:33:28 -0000 Subject: Who Will be Head Boy?-- Was:Ron as Head Boy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88842 bboy_mn: > My instinct tells me that Harry will be Best/Head Boy, but Ron will sufficiently distinguish himself to the point that the Head Boy honor will not be necessary for him to feel proud of himself and his accomplishments. > > In summary, I agree with Shaun, who is far more knowledgable that I am, that Head Boy is a broad school-wide honor bestowed upon a student who has distinguished himself in a variety of ways. I have a feeling--and it's just a feeling, but it's a wickedly fun one--that neither Ron or Harry will be Head Boy. DD has already told Harry that he wasn't made a prefect because Harry already had enough to worry about, and I think by Book 7 that situation will only be exacerbated--he'll really have a lot to worry about then, I fear. I also don't think Ron will be Head Boy...he hasn't shown a lot of aptitude for these types of positions (his work as prefect hasn't exactly been exemplary), and since there's only 1 Head Boy as opposed to 4 male prefects (1 per house), I think his chances are slim. Therefore, I suspect (and only suspect) that the Head Boy in the 7th year will be....(drumroll)....Draco Malfoy!!!! (Ta-Daaaaahhh!) I see your eyes rolling. But there is some reasoning here: 1) Draco's a prefect. And likely to continue being one from Slytherin. 2) It opens up so many interesting possibilities for JKR as the author. We saw how much conflict Draco and pals stirred up when he was prefect...imagine what could happen if he were head boy? Conflict and plot-points galore! A writer's dream. And if Hermione is Head Girl (all evidence points to her)--ooh! More fun conflict. 3) I also suspect that Dumbledore will not be at Hogwarts at the beginning of Book 7...and this is only speculation as well. I'm thinking that something will happen in Book 6 to take DD out of the picture...only to have him reappear in Book 7 'just in the nick of time' for the final big action to occur (whatever that is). And, if DD isn't at Hogwarts when the Head Boy is selected, then Draco has a good shot at getting the post. Ah, my lively imagination. Although I don't like Malfoy, I think this scenario would be most intriguing. From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 20:33:17 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:33:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Perkins (was Re: Time-Turning as a Cure-All) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115203317.35746.qmail@web11302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88843 Ah, Perkins, a mysterious fellow. No answers but questions: 1. referred to as a warlock when all other male wizards are "wizards", 2. loans the tent to the Weasleys that they use at the World Cup and that smells alot like Mrs. Figg's house, 3. when Prof. Binns refers to Harry (he never seems to know any students' names, not even Harry Potter!) he calls him "Perkins" by mistake. Anything to it? ROLSHAN From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Jan 15 21:12:22 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:12:22 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Houses and classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <40079CE6.18576.2554BD8@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88844 On 15 Jan 2004 at 19:56, meriaugust wrote: > I was just perusing a few of the posts speculating about the > Marauders and Snape's school experiences, and something popped into > my head: I was wondering why Harry and the other Gryffindors never > have classes with the Ravenclaws. They have several classes with the > Slytherins (Potions, Care of Magical Creatures and flying lessons) > and have Herbology with the Hufflepuffs, and I have always assumed > that the mysterious Astronomy lessons were like mass lectures with > every student in the year participating, but why no specific > Ravenclaw lessons? It seems odd to me that this happens. So here's a > few questions (and excuse the ignorance of an American over the > British school system): How are the houses paired up for lessons? > (Because it seems to be the ones who will have the most conflict > with each other. Good for dramatic writing, bad for learning.) Are > houses in real British schools paired up like this? Does every house > have classes with every other house? Thoughts? It depends on the school - houses are a convenient administrative grouping, so they are sometimes used to assign classes - but certainly not all schools do that. I had five years in schools run on British lines and from memory, we went like this. Year 8, I was in a prep school (one of the two junior schools to the much larger school I went to the following year). This school had four houses and two year 8 classes, each of the year 8 classes consisted of two houses. Year 9, we went to the senior school that had eight houses and eight classes at year nine level - and each class was made of a single class. We also had three elective subjects, and in those we were all mixed up because it was based on what subjects you chose. Year 10 - I'm not 100% certain, but I think our core classes were made up of half of one house and half of another - so there was some shuffling going on. Elective subjects were the same as Year 9. Year 11 and Year 12 - virtually all our subjects were electives, so we were completely and utterly shuffled up. That's just one set of examples - basically you can get many ways of doing this, depending on how the school wants to do things. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 22:11:54 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:11:54 -0000 Subject: The Map and how did Fred and George get it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > vmonte wrote: > > > > Maybe Dumbledore gave the map to Fred and George just like he gave > > Harry the invisibility cloak. DD seems to like to pass gifts to > > students. These gifts are then later used to service DD and or the > > Order in some way. > > > Berit replies: > > May I turn your attention to Geoff's excellent post, #88728, where he > quotes canon, telling exactly where Fred and George got the map. > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Julie I know where they got the map, but does anyone know how they learned to use it? That is what I find intriguing. From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 22:05:22 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:05:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's Motives Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88846 Jo herself said that we have to keep an eye on ol' Severus. I know that some think he's really a nice guy under the sarcasm and grease, and other's think he's hoodwinking Dumbledore and the Order. You know what I think? I think he's pretty similar to Harry when it comes to 'acting the hero' Think about it: First year: He KNEW Quirrel was trying to steal the stone, possibly not because he was hiding Voldemort under his turban, but he knew he was up to something, did he go to Dumbledore? No. Even after he knew that Quirrel was trying to kill harry during quidditch, he didn't say anything. He went so far as to referee the next match. To protect Harry? As Quirrel suggested, but he was only speculating. Perhaps Severus was hoping Quirrel would try something, and he could swoop up and save the day. Prisoner of Azkaban: In the shreiking Shack, and afterwards, Snape was practically giggling with excitement at catching the 'bad' guys. Remember how nuts he went when Fudge told him he wouldn't be getting the order of Merlin? I don't think that Snape's acting double agent for Voldemort, but neither do I think that he's being totally honest with Dumbledore either. I think that he's basically looking out for himself. He jumped Voldemorts ship, because he realized he was on the losing side. Maybe, he felt that HE was more powerful than Voldemort, but that Dumbledore was more powerful than both. Notice, he came to work at Hogwarts two months before James and Lilly died. Coincidence? Surely not. The truth is, though, we don't know. Jo's expertly laid clues among the red herring's make it difficult to decipher anything. Bless her. From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 22:22:02 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:22:02 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88847 Eustace_Scrubb wrote: > Subsequent references in the books appear to indicate that the > Dursleys memories have not been modified however. room two > I'm wondering why the Ministry doesn't modify the Dursleys' memories. > Is this entirely because Vernon and Petunia are Harry's legal > guardians (and would this therefore apply to all muggle parents of > young wizards and witches as well)? Or is it Harry-specific? Christy's thoughts... It would seem that this applies to any person who is brought into the wizard world, so to speak. Hermione's parents must know where their daughter is... they've been to Diagon Alley, in fact. And there are several parents of students who are either muggle-born or half and half. I can't imagine that the MoM goes around and modifies the memories of all those people. I find it more likely that perhaps people who are against the idea (can you see a family like the Dursley's getting a letter from Hogwarts if they didn't have any previous connections to it? They'd probably laugh it out of the house) or really don't need to know (like extended family: aunts, uncles, etc.). Remember Petunia knows all about the WW, because of Lily. I think that people who get their memories modified are those who really have no need to know. Like the poor folks who were witness to Pettigrew's actions. Cheeers, Christy From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 22:24:29 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:24:29 -0000 Subject: Wizard Genetics - Alternate Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88848 > bboy_mn: > Someone speculated that there is a finite amount of magical essense in > the universe, and this magical essense seeks embodiment; seeks to > inhabit a living being. > > I read another interview by JKR (can't remember which date, sorry) in which she stated that "blood relations" was not important. I assume, then, that the genetic basis is not important, which would then underscore this theory more. I was wondering about the "inheritance" of magic issue because of the discussions regarding Houses, DEs, etc. It seems (as someone else has speculated, so this is ot my original idea) that "pureblood" is a mere rallying cry for a group to perpetuate their feelings of superiority. LV was not a pureblood, but he thinks himself better than everyone else. (Reminds me of a brunette Hitler and his obsession with blond hair and blue eyes.) What other characteristics separates the DEs from the other "purebloods" such as the Weasleys? This would shed more light on their motivations, and possibly their weaknesses. As DD told Harry, our choices make us who we are. What compels or motivates them to make this choice? Is it a common characteristic, character flaw, personality quirk, etc? Could this, in turn, be used to combat them? Julie -- who readily admits that being a shrink motivates me to ask these questions From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 15 22:23:55 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:23:55 -0000 Subject: From the other side : Part 1 : Zacharias Smith and other lambda students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del: > For example, how would any kid react if Madonna's daughter was > granted very special privileges, that noone else ever gets ? They > would get jealous and hurt, right ? They couldn't help thinking that > she got them because she's famous, right ? And they'd be angry at her. > Well, Harry got on the Quidditch team while still in first year, > which is strictly against school rules, Geoff: No, it isn't. The only rule quoted is that first years may not bring their own broomsticks. This isborne out in canon - "Wood was now looking as though all his dreams had come true at once. 'Ever seen a game of Quidditch, POtter?' he asked excitedly. 'Wood's captain of the Gryffindor team,' Professor McGonagall explained. 'He's just the build for a Seeker, too' said Wood, now walking round Harry and staring at him. 'Light - speedy -we'll have to get him a decent broom, Professor - a Nimbus Two thousand or a Cleansweep Seven, I'd say.' 'I shall speak to Professor Dumbledore and see if we can't bend the first-year rule.' (PS "The Midnight Duel" p. 113 UK edition) Conversation with Ron - "'Seeker?' he said. 'But first years never - you must be the youngest house player in about -' '- a century,'said Harry" (same page as above) I presume that first year's never make the team because they lack the ability at that point. There is no suggestion here that it is against the rules. Del: > Then let's get at the end of the first year. Everything was going > fine, everyone was quite okay by now with Harry. Hey, he'd even been > put into detention once ! And then bam ! He gets into some kind of > troubles, nobody knows what exactly (that's very important : the kids > do NOT know anything about Quirrellmort and the Philosophical Stone), > but a teacher gets killed in the process. Geoff: Canon again - "Harry swallowed and looked around him. He realised he must be in the hospital wing. He was lying in a bed with white linen sheets and next to him was a table piled high with what looked like half the sweet- shop. 'Tokens from your friends and admirers,' said Dumbledore, beaming. 'What happened down in the dungeons between you and Porfessor Quirrell is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole school knows.'" (PS "The man with two faces" p.214 UK edition) Del: > In the fourth year, Harry once again is granted an enormous > privilege, when he is allowed to participate in the Triwizard > Tournament despite being too young. Most kids probably changed their > mind after the First Task, as Ron did, but still... Geoff: He /had/ to participate because the rules stated that anyone whose name came out of the Goblet could not withdraw. "'Finally, I wish to impress upon you wishing to compete that this Tournament is not to be entered into lightly. Once a champion had been selected by the Goblet of Fire, he or she is obliged to see the Tournament through to the end. The placing of your name in the Goblet constitutes a binding, magical contract. There can be no change of heart once you have become champion.'" (GOF "The Goblet of Fire" PP.225-6 UK edition) I think you are playing devil's advocate. Harry has probably talked about his home - att eh first feast after the Sorting Ceremony, we are told that talk turned to families and certainly the majority of Gryffindor seem to be on his side. One also gets the impression that the DA members began to appreciate his qualities in instructing them as time went on. And if there is anyone (other than the Slytherins perhaps) who think the Dolores Umbridge is the first apparently sane and impartial person in power to come to the school, they either have led a very sheltered life or ought to be out looking for the marbles they have lost. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 15 22:36:55 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:36:55 -0000 Subject: MWPP and ...Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88850 sabrinapotter asked why the question of which House James and the boys was in mattered. I had been thinking in terms of just the shock Harry would receive, but del (message 88822) gives a better answer: > I think the most obvious answer would be that Harry would be > immensely shocked. He still has a very black-and-white vision, an "us-against-them" mindset, when it comes to Slytherins. It might do him ots of good to discover that either Sirius and/or James was in > Slytherin. He needs to learn to stop separating the world in 2 > categories, including at school. > > I would just love to have Harry ranting against the Slytherins in > front of Lupin, and then have Lupin lose patience with that childish behaviour and snap "You know Harry, Sirius and I were in Slytherin !" That would teach him so much about group discrimination ! > > Or even better yet : Snape whispering to Harry that "Lupin and Black were in Slytherin with me, you know, Potter". Harry couldn't look Snape in the eye for a week after that ! Bobby: This also addresses what I think is the real objection to the theory -- not the points that have raised in response to my original post but the question of why Snape, Malfoy, and LV have not been taunting Harry with the news. It could be that JKR is just saving the lesson that not everything is black and white for when he really needs it. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 15 22:38:30 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:38:30 -0000 Subject: The Map and how did Fred and George get it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > Julie: > I know where they got the map, but does anyone know how they learned > to use it? That is what I find intriguing. Geoff: The main thread "The Map" begins at message 88675. If you follow it through from there, there has been some interesting discussion on your question. From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 22:44:12 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:44:12 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88852 >Mandy wrote: > The fact the Neville's family risked his life to find out that he was > not a Squib, implies that it is either not possible, or very > difficult, to call the ministry and find out if the child's name is > down in 'The Book' or not. > > Do we have canon evidence that this is WHY dear old Uncle Algie dropped Neville off the balcony? Was it to see IF he was magical, or does canon tell us simply that this is when they found out he was magical? (I do not have my books, so I cannot read this section.) Back to what I have posted earlier, I try not to assume to know a motivation. I still wonder about Neville's family and their possibly being DEs or at least in this camp. Is it possible that Uncle Algie knew of LV's suspicion about the prophecy and, thinking Neville could be the question mark, tried to kill Neville for LV? I'm curious about what others think. Julie -- who still owns my shrink bias From watsola79 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 23:06:33 2004 From: watsola79 at yahoo.com (watsola79) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:06:33 -0000 Subject: Apparating at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88853 Forgive me if this subject has been covered already (I haven't seen any reference to it), but I was re-reading Chamber of Secrets yesterday, and I noticed at the end, after Harry set Dobby free from the Malfoys, that Dobby *vanished* with a crack like a whip. Sorry I don't have my book with me, can't offer the exact quote. Now, apparating and disapparating have been described several times, always with the loud cracking noise....I think it's in the beginning of OOP when Harry hears the loud crack and thinks that it's exactly the sound of someone apparating or disapparating....also when Fred and George apparate in Ron & Harry's room at Grimmauld Place....I can think of several others.... Does this mean that Dobby disapparated from Hogwarts? According to Hermione (Hogwarts, A History), and Umbridge, "You can't inside this school!" Or is there canon that Dobby can appear/disappear through the use of other forms of magic? If so, then maybe Hogwarts isn't as safe and/or protected as people like to think it is. Food for thought, --Lana Lovegood From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 15 23:36:31 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:36:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Apparating at Hogwarts? References: Message-ID: <003801c3dbc0$67b31820$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88854 {Lana} Does this mean that Dobby disapparated from Hogwarts? According to Hermione (Hogwarts, A History), and Umbridge, "You can't inside this school!" Or is there canon that Dobby can appear/disappear through the use of other forms of magic? If so, then maybe Hogwarts isn't as safe and/or protected as people like to think it is {Anne} Although it hasn't been stated as unrefutable cannon fact in the books, I suspect that the house elves have a skill similar to the Apparation spell that isn't affected by the No-apparation zone. In book five, Fawkes the phoenix also seems to teleport in and out of Hogwarts as he pleases (and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to find them" notes that phoenixs "...like the diricawl, can appear and disappear at will..." (US Softback, 2001 Edition, pg 32)...)....so my guess is that perhaps Hogwarts is protected against the *human/wizard* spell that is apparation, but not necessarily against non-humans or creatures with similar magic. As for the 'popping' sound....well, my guess would be is that that's the sound of air either collapsing into the area where the entity had just been, or conversely, the sound of exploding and/or rapidly moving air as the molecules make room for the incoming creature...(Think about thunder--it's created by air molecules that essentially explode when lightening tears through them....and sonic booms are created when air molecules are forced out of the way by the incredible speeds of the craft thats traveling beyond the sound barrier, and then rush back into the empty vacuum created in the wake of the craft....) Anne From rredordead at aol.com Fri Jan 16 00:10:18 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:10:18 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88855 > Julie wrote: > Do we have canon evidence that this is WHY dear old Uncle Algie > dropped Neville off the balcony? Was it to see IF he was magical, > or does canon tell us simply that this is when they found out he was magical? I still wonder about Neville's family and their > possibly being DEs or at least in this camp. Is it possible that > Uncle Algie knew of LV's suspicion about the prophecy and, thinking > Neville could be the question mark, tried to kill Neville for LV? Mandy here: Humm you're right. It is Neville's assumption that his uncle dropped him to see if he was magical, or that's what Neville was lead to believe by his family. They could have had other motives. I too am very suspictious of Neville's family, although I hadn't thought about the possiblity of DE/Uncle Algie knowing about part of the prophecy and attempting to kill Neville for LV. Very interesting. mandy. From rredordead at aol.com Fri Jan 16 00:19:53 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:19:53 -0000 Subject: Houses and classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88856 > Meri wrote: > They have several classes with the > Slytherins So here's a > few questions How are the houses paired up for lessons? > (Because it seems to be the ones who will have the most conflict > with each other. Good for dramatic writing, bad for learning.) Are > houses in real British schools paired up like this? Does every house > have classes with every other house? Thoughts? Mandy here: It depends. In my school we were split into four different houses. Then the school was split in to two halfs, so two of the houses took classes together. So the equivilant in Hogwarts would be that Gryffindor and Slytherin would study together, and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw would study together. It's is usually an administration reason for this, to keep things simple for the scheduling. Mandy From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 16 08:31:39 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:31:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? References: Message-ID: <002c01c3dc0b$29bd2b00$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 88857 > > Julie wrote: > > Do we have canon evidence that this is WHY dear old Uncle Algie > > dropped Neville off the balcony? Was it to see IF he was magical, > > or does canon tell us simply that this is when they found out he > was magical? I still wonder about Neville's family and their > > possibly being DEs or at least in this camp. Is it possible that > > Uncle Algie knew of LV's suspicion about the prophecy and, thinking > > Neville could be the question mark, tried to kill Neville for LV? > > K You know it occurs to me that there's another reason he could have dropped hi off the balcony - the Longbottoms are, or appear to be, purebloods, maybe Uncle Algie felt that as a Squib Neville was an embarrassment to the family and would be less of an embarrassment if he had an 'accident'? Dead embarrassments being somewhat less embarrassing. Or if not an embarrassment just inferior and it was just better to put the boy out of his misery (sort of like the way the Spartans abandoned baby boys who were deemed to be too weak to have the potential to be Spartans). K From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 16 00:49:51 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:49:51 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: <002c01c3dc0b$29bd2b00$a6706751@kathryn> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040116134637.025f4900@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88858 At 00:31 16/01/2004 -0800, you wrote: >K wrote > >You know it occurs to me that there's another reason he could have dropped >hi off the balcony - the Longbottoms are, or appear to be, purebloods, maybe >Uncle Algie felt that as a Squib Neville was an embarrassment to the family >and would be less of an embarrassment if he had an 'accident'? Dead >embarrassments being somewhat less embarrassing. Or if not an embarrassment >just inferior and it was just better to put the boy out of his misery (sort >of like the way the Spartans abandoned baby boys who were deemed to be too >weak to have the potential to be Spartans). > >K Tanya here. Yes, that scenario would match well with what Neville said about the responses from his family after he was dropped and bounced. That attitude might have been a bit more widespread also. I mean if the DE's were trying to breed their numbers up and one, had gasp, horror, a squib baby. Pureblood pride and all that. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:23:36 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:23:36 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88859 Astrid replies Hermione doesn?t fix Harry?s glasses on the train in PS/SS chapter 6 (UK PB page 79/80) This appears to be movie contamination. In CoS chapter 4 Flourish and Blotts (UK PB page 46 *Mr Weasley* mends Harry?s glasses. Again movie contamination ? Hermione mends them in the film. Christy's thoughts... However, Hermione does perform magic outside of Hogwarts (although before she's gone ever, so it may be excused) "Are you sure that's a real spell? said the girl. "Well it's not very good is it? I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all worked for me." (page 105 SS, American edition) There is no mention of Hermione being in trouble. But it seems pretty clear that she's done magic. However, as I said it's before they've officially started, so perhaps the rules don't apply. After all, we know Harry has done plenty of magic before he enters Hogwarts. However, I tend to think that this rule applies to magic that Muggles can see, and is therefore less strictly applied when it's a wizarding house where chances are there aren't any Muggles that shouldn't be there. Cheers, Christy From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:47:28 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:47:28 -0000 Subject: Question about Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88860 In flipping through the reecent posts about the Marauders, I've been struck by the number of people who are working on theories that one or all of the Marauders were in Slytherin. Now, I could see where Sirius could have been sorted into Slytherin. I could also just as easily see him in Gryffindor. James could also go either way (just as Harry could have, or several other students that I'm entirely sure the Sorting Hat took some time thinking over). My question however is, what makes somebody think that Remus Lupin could have been in Slytherin? The only way this theory makes sense is if you say the Hat simply put him there cause it needed to fill a space (A theory I don't buy, or else why bother putting any personalities to the houses at all. I doubt JKR just put it there cause it sounded cute). IMHO, Remus almost had to be a Gryffindor. And if I was forced to pick another house, it'd be Ravenclaw. Remus is talented and smart but clearly was a foolish child (as most children tend to be) who got into trouble. But instead of curling into a ball and hiding, he tried to go to school and in fact risked the danger of other people finding out. He lives his life, essentially, as a poor scholar because he can't find a job, but he keeps going. One of his friends was a traitor and the other two were killed but Remus manages to go on (and yes, I know all about the theories that Remus killed Sirius. I don't buy that). All of that takes a degree of courage, strength of heart so to speak. That's what Gryffindor house is all about. (I'm sure it's also obvious that I'm quite fond of Lupin). Could somebody explain to me what evidence would lead to Lupin being a Slytherin? Cheers, Christy From CoyotesChild at charter.net Fri Jan 16 01:45:40 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:45:40 -0600 Subject: FILK: OWL Tests at Hogwarts Message-ID: <000101c3dbd2$72cabc10$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88861 Iggy de-cloaking: Hi all. Got a wild notion crawling around in my head today... I'm not really sure where it came from... but I ended up being inspired to write this Filk. Hope it meets everyone's approval. (And yes, CM, that standing OK for my filks is still in effect.) Iggy McSnurd (*disappears with a swish of his invisibility cloak, leaving behind only a scroll bearing some song lyrics*) OWL Tests at Hogwarts (to the tune of "One Night in Bangkok" from the musical "Chess") Hermione: Hogwarts, scholastic setting. And the students don't know what grades they're getting The hardest of the tests for the fifth years in a Week with every quiz but a blood test. Time flies - - doesn't seem a minute Since the Great Hall last has testers in it. All stress - - don't you know that when you Test at this level, it's no ordinary revue. It's potions - - or transfiguring - - or charms - - or - - or this test? Students: Take OWLs at Hogwarts and your brain's a pudding Your eyes are sandy, you can barely see You'd know the answers if you can just keep thinking And if you're lucky you don't get a "D" Though that's still better than a "T" Hermione: One test's very like another When your head's down over your paper, brother. Students: It's a drag, it's a bore, it's really such a bitch Taking all of these tests, and not playing Quidditch. Hermione: Whaddaya mean? Didn't I just take this test?? Students: Butter beer, warm, sweet Drink up since it's hours 'til we eat. Hermione: Get stuffed! You're talking to the student Who's every choice is the most prudent. I study during all my free time, sunshine. Students: OWL tests at Hogwarts makes the proud man humble Not much between despair and ecstasy. OWL tests at Hogwarts and even smart guys crumble Can't be too careful with fellow test-ees I can see Goyle trying to copy me. Hermione: This hall's gonna be the witness To the fifth year's test of cerebral fitness These tests grip me more than any Tri-Wizard or World Cup tourney And thank God I'm finishing my test - - completing it - - I don't see you guys grading The kind of test I'm contemplating I'd let you try, I would invite you But the spells we use are quite beyond you So you'd better stay away from the DA, our secret room, the Ministry. Students: Take OWLs at Hogwarts and your brain's a pudding Your eyes are sandy, you can barely see You'd know the answers if you can just keep thinking And if you're lucky you don't get a "D" Though that's still better than a "T" OWL tests at Hogwarts makes the proud man humble Not much between despair and ecstasy. OWL tests at Hogwarts and even smart guys crumble Can't be too careful with fellow test-ees I can see Goyle trying to copy me. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Jan 16 04:17:09 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 16 Jan 2004 04:17:09 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1074226629.637.99411.w18@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88862 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: Which of these minor characters will either play an essential role in the plot, or will be revealed to have played one? (NB: There are far too many minor characters in the books to include them all, so we've chosen several - some who have been spoken about in the past, some randomly, some because we're personally suspicious of them.) o Aberforth Dumbledore o Bilius Weasley o Blaise Zabini o Caradoc Dearborn o Celestina Warbeck o Croaker o Davey Gudgeon o Dorcas Meadowes o Doris Crockford o Florence o Gabrielle Delacour o Gladys Gudgeon o Great Uncle Algie o Madam Marsh o Madam Rosmerta o Mark Evans o Penelope Clearwater o Perkins o Professor Sinistra o Regulus Black o Rodolphus Lestrange o Stubby Boardman o Trevor the Toad o Weasley cousin (the accountant) o Other (specify onlist, motivating answer) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171117 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Jan 16 04:17:24 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 16 Jan 2004 04:17:24 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1074226644.327.41295.w36@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88863 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: Which of these presumably dead (or indisposed) characters will turn out to not be dead after all, or will come back to life? o The Basilisk o Mrs. Black o Regulus Black o Sirius Black o Broderick Bode o Any of the Bones family o Barty Crouch Jr. o Barty Crouch Sr. o Mrs. Crouch o Caradoc Dearborn o Cedric Diggory o Benjy Fenwick o Alice and/or Frank Longbottom o Mrs. Lovegood o Marlene McKinnon o Dorcas Meadowes o James Potter o Lily Potter o Gideon and/or Fabian Prewett o Quirrell o Rosier o Missing Weasley Child, should there prove to have been one o Wilkes o Other (specify onlist, motivating answer) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171118 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From mariaalena at purdue.edu Fri Jan 16 04:17:54 2004 From: mariaalena at purdue.edu (maralenenok) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:17:54 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: New Polls Have Arrived! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88864 Hi, everyone! You have probably noticed that we haven't had any new polls for a while. But as of today, two new interesting polls are up and running: the Important Minor Characters Poll, and the Are They *Really* Dead? Poll. To make this even better, more polls are coming soon! One small request: if you vote for "Other" in any of the polls, and post to specify your choice onlist, please say what the motivation behind your choice is. That'll make discussion more interesting. You can see all polls and vote in them in the Polls area of the site. Also, keep in mind that if you have an idea for a poll, you can always send it to the Elves at hpforgrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com, and we'll gladly set it up for you. We look forward to seeing the results! Hebby Elf and Manya Elf, For the List Admin Team. From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Fri Jan 16 04:50:55 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (=?iso-8859-1?q?Vinnia?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:50:55 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What exactly constitutes "Squibdom"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040116045055.74960.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88865 Sigune wrote: > This is possibly a stupid question, but is there an > exact definition > of a Squib? I mean, are Squibs entirely devoid of > magic (as in: the > perfect opposite of a Muggle-born wizard), or do > they possess some, > but not enough to be a 'full' wizard/witch? Vinnia: This is just a theory, no canon to back it up. There is a measure for magical ability, MQ (Magical Quotient). Let say the range is 0-100. There are 4 categories based on this MQ: - Magically powerful wizard: MQ 75-100 eg: Dumbledore, Voldemort, Harry. - Ordinary wizard: MQ 50-75 Most wizard and witches - Magically weak wizard: MQ 25-50 eg: Crabbe, Goyle - Squib: MQ 0-25 Based on this, there is quite a wide range of squibdom. MQ 0 or 1 is probably totally muggle. Squib with MQ of 25 could probably do simple magic, such as wingardium leviosa. Sigune : > I know that: > - Mrs Figg can at least see Dementors Vinnia: There is a minimal MQ that you can see magical things, say 5. I imagine there is hardly any squib with MQ less than 5, so almost all squib can see dementors, Hogwarts, Knight bus etc. Sigune : > - Filch has somehow managed to hide his "Squibdom" > during his long > career at Hogwarts (at least the students don't seem > to be aware of > it). Vinnia: Most students probably thought he's just a very weak wizard. Or they never thought about it. Magic in the corridor is not allowed, so they probably never thought twice about Filch never using magic in front of them. Sigune : > My questions are: > > 1) If Squibs have no magic at all, then the > Kwikspell course is just > swindlery. Alternatively, can magic be acquired > somehow, e.g. by > doing the Kwikspell course? Kwikspell never claims that their course is for squib. It is for witches and wizard (stated in the letter that came with the lessons) Vinnia hoping she's not too late in replying. http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time. From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 05:03:39 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:03:39 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous (part 2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88866 Neri wrote: As my test case I use the Ron=DD theory, which is discussed as part of the knight2king theory (read all about it in http://www.knight2king.net , hoping I got the link right this time). JKR can save herself from paradox by devising just two histories. This may be termed the Double Loop Ploy (DLP): Ron travels 130 years into the past, and becomes DD. He does everything he can to prevent LV rise to power, and succeeds, but this causes an unexpected, tragic turn of events. Say, in this history DD fails to defeat Grindelwald, so there is a war all over again, only a different war with another Bad Guy. Somehow, a Ron is born in this history too, and this Ron is also, somehow, transported to the past. Note that this is a different Ron (call him Ron-2). He must be different because he has a different history, H-2. In fact, it might not even be Ron this time around. vmonte wrote: Yes, I sort of understand your idea that there could be more than one timeline going on (I don't even want to begin thinking about this idea). I don't know if time travel, Ron=DD, is the right answer to why DD seems to know more than he should, but I do think that it is possible, and there are many clues pointing in that direction. Of course, he could just be a (real) Seer who is subtly trying to manipultate history. One thing I don't believe is that the time-line is fixed /unchangeable. It is very obvious that DD (at different times) manipulates the characters in the books (yes, like chess pieces). (Many fans have pointed to the fact that DD is almost playing puppet master with the children.) I can reconcile DD's manipulation of the time-line, if his transportation back into time was/is accidental. (I cannot blame someone for trying to change history if they are trying to save lives, blah blah etc.) I do think that if time-travel is involved at all it will ultimately show that people must take responsibility for their actions. Time- travel is an easy fix! (I completely understand why fans of the books would feel cheated if in the end no one really had free choice/free will.) I believe DD will come to realize that time-line meddling never really changes history, not because it is the law of the time-line continuum, but because people have free will, and no matter how much you try to protect loved ones they are the ones who should be in charge of their own destiny, blah blah etc. Meddling may only delay what will eventually happen anyway. I think DD was trying to save Sirius (change history) when he had Hermione and Harry time-travel with Buckbeak, and when he forced Sirius to remaine at OOTP headquarters--in the end DD only ended up delaying Sirius's death. Finally, no one really knows how the books are going to end (except JKR), but I think that if DD=Ron via time-travel, or DD is a Seer, Rowling will ultimately remark that people need to be accountable for their actions. Time-travel is like the Mirror of Erised. You can either live in fantasy, never accepting what life has given you, or you can make the best of it that you can. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 05:51:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:51:34 -0000 Subject: Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88867 Jake wrote: > > Here's what we know about vampires from the canon: > > 1. Some live in the forest outside Hogwarts. Ergo, vampires must > > like some connection with the forest (maybe it's just a good place > > to eat or hide or live...something). Arcum responded: > Actually, we don't know this. The quote in question is "They say he > met vampires in the Black Forest, and there was a nasty bit o' trouble > with a hag -- never been the same since.". Black Forest != > Forbidden Forest, necessarily, since he was taking a year off from > Hogwarts at the time". > > Unless there's another Forest related quote I'm missing... Carol: The Black Forest is in Bavaria and happens to be associated with vampire legends--nothing to do with the Forbidden Forest at all. I thought Quirrell was in Romania, but maybe he stopped in Bavaria along the way. Carol, who is suppressing the urge to think about Black Forest cake and Bavarian cream From nakedkali at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:55:13 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:55:13 -0000 Subject: The eagle owl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88868 Berit said: [long interesting post majorly-snipped by Sea Change] > Anyone noticed any more eagle owl acticity in the books, apart from > the owl that brings Draco a fresh supply of treats every week (that's > an eagle owl if I remember corrrectly)? ---------- Sea Change responds: No! What an interesting find! I had always assumed because Hedwig was huge and prone to biting people that an eagle owl is what she was. On rereading the first book, apparently her size and ill temper (and perhaps other monstrous traits) are simply accountable to the fact that she's the kind of owl that Hagrid would like, and it was him who gave her to Harry. Maybe the eagle owl is the Malfoy family bird, and it appears whenever Lucius is up to something? From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:22:44 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:22:44 -0000 Subject: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88869 bboy_mn: > In summary, I agree with Shaun, who is far more knowledgable that > I am, that Head Boy is a broad school-wide honor bestowed upon a > student who has distinguished himself in a variety of ways. Didn't JKR say that Harry would be too busy in the next two years to be chosen for Head Boy, or was it just prefect that she mentioned? Andrew From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:36:31 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88870 Inge said > Wondering also when one can know for sure if one's child is a > wizard/witch or not. Is it very early in the childs life or isn't > it until the letter from Hogwarts arrives? > > In Harry's case it seems it was known wizardwide that he was > actually born to be a wizard since his name had been in the books > at Hogwarts since his birth. But what about Neville? Didn't his > grandmother suspect him to be a squib? And Hermione? Was she in > the books of Hogwarts since birth or didn't her name show up till > she turned 11? So when does it come clear that a wizard is a > wizard? Is there any canon that states the child must be 11 before recieving a letter? People are born all year round. I have a summer birthday like Harry and here I could either have been an old person for one grade, or a young person in the higher grade. With these complications, it is most likely that they would know if the child was a witch or wizard from birth. Do they really want all of that information open to the public? Wouldn't it most likely be tightly guarded; very valuable information. My thoughts Andrew From dk_manchester at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 02:27:37 2004 From: dk_manchester at hotmail.com (Dave) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:27:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Jo herself said that we have to keep an eye on ol' Severus. I know > that some think he's really a nice guy under the sarcasm and grease, > and other's think he's hoodwinking Dumbledore and the Order. > I don't think that Snape's acting double agent for Voldemort, but > neither do I think that he's being totally honest with Dumbledore > either. I think that he's basically looking out for himself. He > jumped Voldemorts ship, because he realized he was on the losing > side. Maybe, he felt that HE was more powerful than Voldemort, but > that Dumbledore was more powerful than both. Notice, he came to work > at Hogwarts two months before James and Lilly died. Coincidence? > Surely not. The truth is, though, we don't know. Jo's expertly laid > clues among the red herring's make it difficult to decipher > anything. Bless her. I think hits to the hub of Snape, his duplicity, he acts mean and evil, yet he helps Harry when he needs him. He has the Dark Mark of the Death Eaters yet Dumbledore 'trusts' him. He also has the ability, 'Legimens' and 'Occlumency' to read others minds and block his own thoughts, which could mean he tells some people what they want to hear whilst blocking his true thoughts. Duplicity.....we have yet to get to the truth of Severus Snape. Dave From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 16 05:02:24 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:02:24 -0000 Subject: Who Will be Head Boy?-- Was:Ron as Head Boy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88872 pennygbrooks wrote: > I have a feeling--and it's just a feeling, but it's a wickedly fun > one--that neither Ron or Harry will be Head Boy. DD has already > told Harry that he wasn't made a prefect because Harry already had > enough to worry about, and I think by Book 7 that situation will > only be exacerbated--he'll really have a lot to worry about then, I > fear. > > I also don't think Ron will be Head Boy...he hasn't shown a lot of > aptitude for these types of positions (his work as prefect hasn't > exactly been exemplary), and since there's only 1 Head Boy as > opposed to 4 male prefects (1 per house), I think his chances are > slim. > > Therefore, I suspect (and only suspect) that the Head Boy in the > 7th year will be....(drumroll)....Draco Malfoy!!!! (Ta-Daaaaahhh!) > > more snipping It occurs to me that Malfoy could very possibly be head boy for the very reasons you mention (fun for JKR to write, DD not at the school at the beginning of the year...perhaps Snape will be left in charge due to the absence of both DD and McGonagall) It is my belief (and it is fairly far fetched and probably previously mentioned) that Harry will take on the pre-OWL DADA classes (with Dumbledore or some unknown doing the NEWT classes). In other words, he will have far too much responsiblilty AND power to need the head boy position. I also love the idea of spending the next two books watching Snape wrestle with the student Potter and the peer Potter at the same time! Quietly slipping away again. Sue (suehpfan) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 06:29:07 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:29:07 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88873 Eustace_Scrubb wrote: > By virtue of having Harry Potter under their roof for extended periods > of time, the Dursleys have witnessed a number of things that might > normally result in the arrival of a squad of Ministry memory charm > operatives. > > In COS, there was the levitating pudding. > Also in COS, all three Dursleys saw the flying car as Harry escaped. > In POA, the inflation of Aunt Marge. > In GOF, the Weasleys' destruction of the living room. > In OOP, the Dementor attack on Dudley. > > Subsequent references in the books appear to indicate that the > Dursleys memories have not been modified however. > > In POA (p.44), when Harry meets Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron, the > Minister tells him that Marjorie Dursley's memory has been modified so > that she "has no recollection of the incident at all." There's no > mention of other memory modification and Fudge later tells Harry, "I > won't deny that they are extremely angry..." Had their memories been > modified, they would presumably have nothing (other than their general > anger at Harry's presence) to be angry about. > > At the end of OOP, when Arthur Weasley leads Harry and his entourage > up to the Dursleys, he greets Vernon "pleasantly" with "You might > remember me, my name's Arthur Weasley." This is followed by this > line: > "As Mr. Weasley had demolished most of the Dursleys' living room two > years previously, Harry would have been very surprised if Uncle Vernon > had forgotten him." (p.765) > > Now, it's true that this is Harry's impression, and we don't really > know whether the Dursleys' reaction (Vernon turns "a deeper shade of > puce," Petunia looks "frightened and embarrassed" and Dudley tried and > failed to look "small and insignificant")to Arthur and the group > really relates to the incident Harry remembers. But the passage > implies that they may remember Arthur's visit. > > I'm wondering why the Ministry doesn't modify the Dursleys' memories. > Aunt Marge may not remember being blown up, but I would imagine the > other three Dursleys would have difficulty putting it out of their > minds at future family gatherings. > > Is this entirely because Vernon and Petunia are Harry's legal > guardians (and would this therefore apply to all muggle parents of > young wizards and witches as well)? Or is it Harry-specific? Has > someone (Fudge? Dumbledore?) determined that it would be more > dangerous for Harry and/or the Dursleys for these memories to be > modified? Presumably there's a reason for Petunia to remember > Dementors and Azkaban; perhaps these "domestic incidents" are also > important enough that they should be remembered? Or maybe...the > Dursleys will do such a good job of repressing their own memories of > such events that the charm is unnecessary? Carol: I think there's a very simple explanation: The Dursleys already know about magic because of Lily and James, but they were already attempting to conceal any connection with it before the Potters died and Harry ended up on their doorstep. There's no need to conceal magic from them, and now that Harry has to go to Hogwarts, it's essential that they get him there and back again and that they allow him his school books, wand, cauldron, etc. (This would be the case with any Muggle parents or guardians of witch/wizard children, but it's particularly important in Harry's case.) Also, Petunia has to be reminded of her bargain with Dumbledore, whatever it entailed (the Howler in OoP). Aunt Marge is another matter. She (as Vernon's sister) has no WW connections; she doesn't know or need to know about Harry's magical powers, so she has her memory fixed. Carol From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 06:33:57 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:33:57 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88874 I checked "other" because of Madam Marchbanks. In OoP ch. 15 is the Daily Prophet article about Dolores Umbridge's appointment as Hogwarts High Inquisitor. I'll quote the end of the article: ------------------------------------------------------- Wizengamot elders Griselda Marchbanks and Tiberius Ogden have resigned in protest at the introduction of the post of Inquisitor to Hogwarts. "Hogwarts is a school, not an outpost of Cornelius Fudge's office," said Madam Marchbanks. "this is a further disgusting attempt to discredit Albus Dumbledore." (For a full account of Madam Marchbanks' alleged links to subversive goblin groups, tun to page 17). ----------------------------------------------------------- Not to mention that we find out in ch. 31 ("O.W.L.S") that Griselda Marchbanks (a.k.a. Professor Marchbanks) is the very elderly head of the Wizarding Examinations Authority. Count on it: Madam Marchbanks is working with the goblins at Dumbledore's behest. (FWIW, I'll even say she was one of the elderly witches who waved to Dumbledore at Harry's hearing.) Annemehr wagering ten Galleons From punkieshazam at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 06:50:32 2004 From: punkieshazam at yahoo.com (punkieshazam) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:50:32 -0000 Subject: Your honor, he said, "Blah, blah, blah Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88875 >delurk< I'm going to do my rant again. One of the themes that I have observed in the Potter series is that Rowling takes on themes of prejudice. I am certain that we in our everyday lives take care not to offend other ethnic and social groups by the use of inappropriate language. Yet JKR has clearly told us in CoS chapter 7 that mudblood is a bad word--a *very* bad word. So why is it used on this list as an ordinary discriptor when discussing Harry's genetic makeup? Lenny Bruce, in a routine following his trial for using obscenities, described the lawyers and judges as seeming to enjoy using the words that he had used and repeated them many, many times. "Yes, Your Honor he said, 'Blah, blah, blah.'" Now I don't think that any of you use the word mudblood in that way, but never-the-less it is a blah, blah, blah word. Please be respectful of Harry and stop referring to him as a mudblood. Punkie Petunia is a squib! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 07:06:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:06:55 -0000 Subject: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) In-Reply-To: <008301c3db95$fadeeeb0$a6a09c18@cr390913a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alina" wrote: > > > Quote: > > "'Snape was trying to save me?' > > 'Of course,' said Quirrel coolly. 'Why do you think he wanted to > > referee your next match? He was trying to make sure I dodn't do it > > again... All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop > > Gryffindor winning, he DID make himself unpopular...'" (PS p. 209 UK > > Ed). > > > > Snape was willing to make himself unpopular to keep Harry safe... > > > Berit > > I'm pretty sure you're misreading that quote. Snape isn't making himself > unpopular to make Harry safe. I think what Rowling meant there was that > Snape was planning to make Harry safe, however because he was already > unpopular with the rest of the staff, they assumed he was planning to > sabotage the game. > > Alina. Actually, Berit is right. The quote says quite clearly that he "made himself unpopular" via his choice to referee the game. There's no evidence that he's unpopular with the other teachers (e.g. Flitwick or Sprout) and he's constantly in McGonagall's company. Those two are with Dumbledore almost as often as Ron and Hermione are with Harry or Crabbe and Goyle with Draco Malfoy. In fact, I'm pretty sure that despite the show they make of the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry, they're allies or even friends ("I couldn't look Severus Snape in the eye for weeks" after a Gryffindor defeat--why worry about looking someone in the eye if they're someone you dislike?) Also, they work together to get the useless Lockhart out of the way (and into Harry's and Ron's company) when Ginny Weasley is captured; they both oppose Umbridge, etc. And Dumbledore, of course, not only trusts Snape but worries about his safety when he sends him off on a prearranged mission in GoF. However much the students dislike Snape (and most of them, except the Slytherins, do), there's no indication that the teachers share their antipathy. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 07:09:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:09:34 -0000 Subject: Timeline question. In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040116074602.025eee30@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tanya Swaine wrote: > At 13:16 15/01/2004 -0500, you wrote: > > >Alina wrote: > > > >The trial was after the fall of Voldemort. Remember, Crouch Jr. and co were > >tried for torturing the Longbottoms because they believed the couple > >possessed information about the disappeared Voldemort's whereabouts. > > > >Alina. > > Tanya here > > Thanks for that. I was under the impression that there were 2 Trials, as > it faded in and out between scenes. > Long time to keep them locked up though pre trial. > > Tanya > Maybe you're thinking of Karkaroof's trial? Actually, there were three trials in the Dumbledore pensieve scene: Crouch Jr. and the Lestranges, Karkaroff, and Ludo Bagman (almost typed Baggins!) Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 16 07:49:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:49:12 -0000 Subject: The eagle owl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: Sea Change: > > No! What an interesting find! I had always assumed because Hedwig > was huge and prone to biting people that an eagle owl is what she was. > On rereading the first book, apparently her size and ill temper (and > perhaps other monstrous traits) are simply accountable to the fact > that she's the kind of owl that Hagrid would like, and it was him who > gave her to Harry. > Geoff: Hedwig is a snowy owl, which hails from the Arctic and is the same size as an eagle owl. I don't think canon suggests that she is particularly ill-tempered. She gets a bit grumpy if Harry is off-hand and if he encourages her to make her presence felt - as when "requesting" replies in OOTP. In fact, canon remarks - "Harry now carried a large cage which held a beautiful snowy owl...." (PS "Diagon Alley" p.63 UK edition) Geoff (founder member of SoSo.. Support our Snowy Owls) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 07:51:05 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:51:05 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > I checked "other" because of Madam Marchbanks. I checked "other" (in addition to about six names) because of Rabastan Lestrange (why give Rodolphus a brother and Bellatrix a brother-in-law when they could have Crucio'd the Longbottoms without his help? There must be a reason). Also because of Theodore Nott, named as the son of a (presumably imprisoned) Death Eater and implied as the lone Slytherin in Harry's year who can see Thestrals. (I think it's Theo, not Blaise Zabini, who sees them, since "weedy" and "stringy" seem to indicate the same person. How can a boy be "stringy OR "weedy"? Oh, well. The good Slytherin, anybody?) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 08:40:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:40:55 -0000 Subject: Your honor, he said, "Blah, blah, blah In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "punkieshazam" wrote: > >delurk< > > I'm going to do my rant again. > > One of the themes that I have observed in the Potter series is that > Rowling takes on themes of prejudice. I am certain that we in our > everyday lives take care not to offend other ethnic and social > groups by the use of inappropriate language. Yet JKR has clearly > told us in CoS chapter 7 that mudblood is a bad word--a *very* bad > word. So why is it used on this list as an ordinary discriptor when > discussing Harry's genetic makeup? > > Lenny Bruce, in a routine following his trial for using obscenities, > described the lawyers and judges as seeming to enjoy using the words > that he had used and repeated them many, many times. "Yes, Your Honor > he said, 'Blah, blah, blah.'" Now I don't think that any of you use > the word mudblood in that way, but never-the-less it is a blah, blah, > blah word. > > Please be respectful of Harry and stop referring to him as a mudblood. > > Punkie > > Petunia is a squib! > > I don't think anyone has referred to Harry as a "mudblood" (except as a momentary slip) since we all know he's a half-blood. (Hermione, maybe?) But "mudblood" in quotes is easier to type than Muggle-born, so we may have used the term for Muggle-borns in general. I assure you, though, that no offense was meant in any case. We're all Muggles here! Carol From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 08:59:06 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0000 Subject: Lost wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88881 Re-reading the chapter where Harry buys his wand, I started to wonder what would happen if a wizard lost his wand. I don't mean had it taken from him, but simply mislaid it somehow or other. As there is such a strong connection between wizard and wand, would it somehow find its way back to him? Or would he have to buy another one? (Back to post-Azkaban Sirius). I would personally hate to have to explain to Mr. Ollivander what I'd done. Sylvia (who is constantly mislaying things) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 16 09:52:26 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:52:26 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88882 I would like to add Ludo Bagman's brother Otto. I don't have the books to hand, but I believe he was prosecuted for charming a lawnmower. He's just too good to waste. David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 16 10:05:32 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:05:32 -0000 Subject: The future undead poll Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88883 I checked (or, rather, ticked, as I live in the UK) the 'other' box, but for me it really represents 'none of the above or any other person'. A partial exception might be Nicolas or Perenelle Flamel, whose death was implied but not stated. In common with those who have voted, I guess Regulus Black has the best chance, but on the whole I think not. I think it not very likely that either of the Longbottoms will regain their sanity. But: Sirius - dead James - expired Lily - passed over Missing Weasley - no more Bertha Jorkins - gone to that great ministry in the sky squawk! David, who thinks it might be interesting and fun if it turns out Salazar Slytherin also made and used the Philosopher's Stone, but still not likely From koukla_es at yahoo.es Fri Jan 16 10:23:28 2004 From: koukla_es at yahoo.es (neith_seshat) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:23:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley Abigail, many thanks for your precise and detailed summary and interesting questions > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. I think it's really common, as the existence of the office where he works shows. As you well say, it seems that many wizards just consider Muggle-baiting a minor offence, nothing to worry about, and a childish prank. >Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a > patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most > often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that > he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome > attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's > statement shed a new light on him? Yes, I think it really counters the claim, and allows us to have another view on Arthur, that of a person who sees the faults in their society; he gave another example in GOF, when he and Hermione talked about elf rights. > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? I agree with many others in that Arthur is angry about the fact that Malfoy does his will in a corrupted ministry: he feels the unfairness of the system. I don't think he'd like to be in Malfoy's shoes. > 5. Having read the rest of OOP, there seems to be no reason to > believe that Fudge is under the Imperius Curse, but how could > Dumbledore know this for sure? He's been around for 150 years (more or less); then, he has been able to know many people and their characters. Remember in GOF Parting of the Ways, when he qualifies Fudge's reaction as " not unexpected". > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his achievement. > Do you feel that these criticisms are justified? How do the > revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the chapter > affect your opinion of her? Is it possible that she's overreacting > to the first bit of good news she's had in a while? Could Mrs. > Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with > Percy? Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in Ron? I think she's not trying to recreate Percy in Ron; for her, being a prefect means the first step for success (you now, then HB, then Ministry or Gringotts; I don't think she's too happy with Charlie's job). Also, IMO, Molly overreacted because she had assumed, as Hermione and many others, that Harry'd be prefect; the fact that Ron suceeded having "the" Harry Potter as a "rival", is an added factor. She loves Harry, but he's not her son. > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? I have thought about that, and in the end I decided it was plot-wise to have Ron. I'd have preferred Neville, although it has been said it'd have been a burden for him. In any case, I put my hopes on Neville as Head Boy: he's developing himself in a way that maybe next Harry's year will be shown as parallel to James'. > > 14. Why does Moody show Harry the photograph of the Order, and > why does he think Harry would be interested in the picture of his > parents? Is he unaware of the reaction Harry might have to seeing > his parents with Pettigrew, or is he purposefully trying to provoke > that reaction? Is Moody unaware that Harry does have pictures of > his parents, and perhaps thinks that this is the first time Harry has > seen a photograph of them? Maybe he was trying to provoke that reaction; remember he's the one (well, Fake!Moody, but in any case) who says "Constant Vigilance!" every five seconds. It is a way of saying: "Suspect everyone, and don't trust blindly on your closest friends". Neith From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 06:30:53 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:30:53 -0000 Subject: Teachers in the Order Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88885 Abbet wrote: I just don't think that Hagrid, McGonagall, and Snape are the only teachers in the Order as Harry thinks at the end of OoP. Flitwick is seen talking with McGonagall through out OoP, believes that LV is back as do most of the other teachers. He's the Head of Ravenclaw House, so he's smart enough to know to help out. Sprout as Head of Hufflepuff House doesn't need anymore of a reason to join than LV killing Cedric. I don't think that Trelawney or Binns is in the Order, just don't know enough about the other teachers. Sawsan here: I don't know much about the teachers, but I think recalling a Sinistra or something and she hardly seems like she would be part of the Order, considering her name sounds like Sinister, any thoughts? I don't know about Binns, but he is dead anyway and I don't think he has much to contribute other than lecturing everyone about the past :P From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 07:03:32 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:03:32 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88886 As I was rereading the Sorceror's Stone, I came across a line at the end that sounded similar to a line at the end of OotP, both coincidentally, by Dumbledore. In PS/SS, Dumbledore says to Harry ..."The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a BEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution..." In OotP: "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries," interrupted Dumbledore, "That is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more WONDERFUL AND MORE TERRIBLE than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature..." Ok, yet again, I am making no sense. But the truth, or being true are similar and word play can be introduced I would suppose. Suppose what is locked in the Department of Mysteries, is the Truth, and Harry is very true apparently to his friends and his missions and his will to stop the dark side? The whole argument with Dumbledore skirts around the truth, and Dumbledore speaks of the DoM and its little secret. The latter line by Dumbledore has always got me thinking as to what it is, many say love, but I think JKR said that it was very close, but no cigar, well that's how I interpreted what she said, though I can't recall the reference to that right off the bat. Also in PS/SS, another thing that got me thinking about that same line in OotP is when Dumbledore speaks of the Philosopher's/ Sorceror's Stone; he says: "...You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all- the trouble is, humans have knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them" which also runs along the lines of more wonderful and more terrible than death... yet I don't think Harry has immortality and riches nor the PS/SS in him or whatever. Ok enough silliness by me, does anyone have anything to add about the DOM weapon? Sawsan From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 07:14:18 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:14:18 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88887 Here's a thought, I read something that is small and could even not be anything worth mentioning, but I read a line that seems to make me think that Harry might live after all. In chapter 16 of PS/SS: the first line reads "In years to come, Harry would never quite remember how he had managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to come..." Yeah I know years could mean a couple, and years could mean 20, but with all of what Harry has been through already, I don't think that he is worried so much about defeating Voldemort in year one as he has done in the other years, so it gives me small hope that after graduating from Hogwarts and the Voldi business is at an end, he just takes a deep breath and says, "How did I ever get through school with all that bs I was going through with Voldi?" What do you guys think? I mean he hardly seems to worry about all of that now, it's almost like an end of the school year extra credit thing. He has to get through exams and defeat Voldi and/or his followers and he may pass on to the next level or something. Sawsan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 10:53:32 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:53:32 -0000 Subject: From the other side : Part 1 : Zacharias Smith and other lambda students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88888 Hi Geoff, and thanks for the answer ! First off, a quote from the end of your post : > I think you are playing devil's advocate. Ah bah, yes :-) That's *exactly* what I'm doing :-) ! I'm sorry, but I got sick of hearing "Harry is so wonderful and the rest of the WW is nuts for not worshipping him" (okay, I AM exaggerating, I admit ;- ), so I decided I'd try to show that Harry might be annoying for who doesn't know him well. > The only rule quoted is that first years may not bring > their own broomsticks. And I think the main reason they can't bring their own broomsticks is that they won't need them to play on the Quidditch team anyway. Because as you reminded us later : > Conversation with Ron - > "'Seeker?' he said. 'But first years never - you must be the > youngest house player in about -' > '- a century,'said Harry" > > I presume that first year's never make the team because they lack > the ability at that point. There is no suggestion here that it is > against the rules. I disagree with your conclusion that first-years don't ever make the team because they lack the ability. Harry didn't, for example, and I'm sure there were quite a few others over the past century who were both very talented and very well trained when they went to Hogwarts (James comes to my mind...). They could very easily have made it to the team. But they weren't allowed to bring their broomsticks and to do the try-outs. It's a case of the snake eating its own tail : first- years can't bring their own broomsticks so they can't play Quidditch, and since they can't play Quidditch they don't need to have their broomsticks anyway ! So I think there's an official rule that first- years aren't allowed to bring their broomsticks, as well as an officious rule that they aren't allowed to make the team, with their own broomstick or with a school one (which Harry's is technically, by the way : he didn't buy it, it was offered to him by McGonagall if I remember well, so one could argue that it belongs to the school). So as a conclusion : a special case was made for Harry, and for him only, which is totally unfair. > Del: > > Then let's get at the end of the first year. Everything was going > > fine, everyone was quite okay by now with Harry. Hey, he'd even > > been put into detention once ! And then bam ! He gets into some > > kind of troubles, nobody knows what exactly (that's very > > important : the kids do NOT know anything about Quirrellmort and > > the Philosophical Stone), but a teacher gets killed in the > > process. > > Geoff: > Canon again - > > "Harry swallowed and looked around him. He realised he must be in > the hospital wing. He was lying in a bed with white linen sheets > and next to him was a table piled high with what looked like half > the sweet-shop. > 'Tokens from your friends and admirers,' said Dumbledore, > beaming. 'What happened down in the dungeons between you and > Porfessor Quirrell is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole > school knows.'" > > (PS "The man with two faces" p.214 UK edition) Okay, you got me on that one :-) But if you don't mind me nit- picking, you'll notice that all that the kids know was brought to them through rumors. DD admits that the kids weren't given any official version of what happened. So who knows *what* the kids actually believe happened ?! How much do they know ? Weren't the facts distorted in the rumor-spreading process ? How many different versions of the events are being passed around ? That's important, because later on, those same students that admired Harry so much at the time, might actually start to wonder how much of what they were told was actually true. If they hear different, maybe even opposing versions, they might start doubting the whole thing, or finding other explanations, in which Harry is not so much the hero anymore. > Del: > > In the fourth year, Harry once again is granted an enormous > > privilege, when he is allowed to participate in the Triwizard > > Tournament despite being too young. Most kids probably changed > > their mind after the First Task, as Ron did, but still... > > Geoff: > He /had/ to participate because the rules stated that anyone whose > name came out of the Goblet could not withdraw. > > "'Finally, I wish to impress upon you wishing to compete that this > Tournament is not to be entered into lightly. Once a champion had > been selected by the Goblet of Fire, he or she is obliged to see > the Tournament through to the end. The placing of your name in the > Goblet constitutes a binding, magical contract. There can be no > change of heart once you have become champion.'" > > (GOF "The Goblet of Fire" PP.225-6 UK edition) You didn't get my point. You seem to consider that this contract is a bad thing for Harry. In Harry's eyes, it is. But in the other Hogwarts students eyes, it's not ! It's actually very convenient for Harry, in their idea : he broke the rule, but because of this contract, he is still allowed to participate ! You have to remember that up until the First Task, A LOT of students wish they could be one of the champions (remember that French girl who broke down in crying fits when Fleur's name came out ?). So for many Hogwarts students, Harry was not only lucky to have been chosen, but he was also obviously favoured by DD, since he wasn't punished for breaking the rule and entering his name ! (Very few people believed at first that Harry didn't enter his name : Ron didn't, the twins didn't, even DD had doubts...) > Harry has probably talked about his home - att eh first feast after > the Sorting Ceremony, we are told that talk turned to families and > certainly the majority of Gryffindor seem to be on his side. First of all, I have to say that I'm getting very cautious when people say "Harry probably did this or that". I would assume, for example, that Harry probably researched things about his family. Well, obviously he didn't. When it comes to Harry, I've come to expect very unusual behaviour. So to say that Harry probably talked about his home doesn't carry much weight for me. He talked about them all right, probably said they weren't too nice with him and such, but I'm not sure he revealed neither how badly the Dursleys mistreated him nor the extent of his ignorance of the WW. Gryffindor would know more than the other Houses, at least because Ron and Hermione might have spread Harry's story a bit, but we're not sure how much the other Houses really know about Harry. I seem to remember that in CoS, one of the Hufflepuffs tells Harry that he might want to kill all the Muggle-born students because he doesn't like the Muggles he grew up with, so obviously some of Harry's story filtered around, but how much exactly, we don't know for sure. > One also gets the impression that the DA members began to > appreciate his qualities in instructing them as time went on. That's one of the points I'm trying to convey : Harry is okay, *once you've made the effort to know him*. But even the DA were unsure of him at first. Harry has a great charismatic potential, but he doesn't make any effort to develop it. He systematically waits for other people to come and get to know him. And even then, he still sometimes sends them packing (Colin, Neville, Ginny, Luna...), or doesn't play fair-game with them (he lies to DD, keeps things from Ron and Hermione, etc...) > And if there is anyone (other than the Slytherins perhaps) who > think the Dolores Umbridge is the first apparently sane and > impartial person in power to come to the school, they either have > led a very sheltered life or ought to be out looking for the > marbles they have lost. As an aside : many students have actually probably led a very sheltered life. Those kids are the post-War kids, the precious ones, the sheltered ones. Moreover, most of the students don't know DD personally, and have to judge him on his acts and words, and well... Let's be honest : to someone who doesn't him, DD doesn't necessarily seem very sane nor safe. He is powerful, but he's also completely unpredictable and quite lunatic. For example, he did let potentially dangerous teachers come to Hogwarts. Not to mention all the incompetent ones, which Umbridge intends to dismiss. Dolores Umbridge : you have to know her to realise who she truly is. Harry got on her bad side right away, but not everyone did. Many students had actually no reason to fear her. Many students were probably scared the year before by Moody's violent methods in DADA classes, and got only more insecure with the whole matter of the death of Cedric and LV's hypothetic return. So when Umbridge arrived, preaches peace and non-violence, and delivering reassuring speeches about the non-existence of LV, well, I guess she must have attracted quite a few students. I remember how it was when I was a teenager : I wanted excitement allright, but on my own terms, when *I* decided it. The rest of the time, I wanted my world to be safe and peaceful. And for any student who was not on her bad side, I'm sure Umbridge was quite nice. After all, who do we know for sure got into trouble with her ? Harry, the twins, Lee Jordan : all trouble-makers. The teachers didn't like her, but then the staff works much more closely with the Headmaster than the students do, so they would know better. So I honestly don't think that only the Slytherins liked Umbridge : I suspect quite a few other students from all Houses must have liked her too. She was apparently trying to bring peace, order and better quality to the place : a lot of teenagers crave that. Del From klano at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 07:33:20 2004 From: klano at hotmail.com (Kevin Lano) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:33:20 +0000 Subject: CH9 discussion questions -- the twins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88889 > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? >>> I thought the issue of the twins was particularly interesting, at first glance it might seem that JKR does treat them as interchangeable, but actually there is a marked difference in personalities -- Fred is the more extrovert, aggressive, the initiator of things like the bet, he's the one that did nasty things to Ron as a child, etc, whereas George is a bit more laid back and mature (it's George that Harry hands the prize winnings to, which may indicate that Harry also senses this). Despite appearing identical, people seem to have no trouble telling them apart when they're near them (except Molly at the start of PS!). "Kevin Lano" From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 10:57:36 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:57:36 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88890 I hope this is not too much off-topic, but I am really interested in the repercussions the whole wizarding issue has on the lives of Muggles who find themselves with a magic child. I mean, imagine a family gathering at Christmas or New Year's Eve and aunts and uncles asking about how a child is doing at school and what they want to be when they grow up... Does the secrecy that surrounds the magical community mean that these witches and wizards-to-be and their families have to lie all the time, just like the Dursleys do? And does the Muggle-born witch or wizard simply disappear from the Muggle community without their Muggle family asking questions? I guess we will never have the answers to this kind of issues, but they are fun to speculate upon. Yours severely, Sigune From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 16 11:12:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:12:25 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: Sylvia: > Re-reading the chapter where Harry buys his wand, I started to wonder > what would happen if a wizard lost his wand. I don't mean had it > taken from him, but simply mislaid it somehow or other. As there is > such a strong connection between wizard and wand, would it somehow > find its way back to him? Or would he have to buy another one? Geoff: Try some wandless magic or borrow a friend's wand and do "Accio wand"? I have been known to phone my mobile when I can't find it. The most embarrssing moment was to find that I had left it in the railway station buffet 30 miles away! From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 16 11:43:32 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:43:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88892 Robert Jones wrote: > So ... this means that the great Hermione Granger is making a > mistake when she thinks that the hats she is knitting and leaving > around the Gryffindor Common Room will free the House Elves. How > did she think her clothes were being cleaned for years? The Elves > can pick them up and nothing will happen. But the Elves are still > annoyed that someone is trying to trick them and so they do not > clean the Common Room. Your reasoning is impeccable, but I'm not sure it fits the fact that the elves refuse to take the hats. Although they may resent Hermione's efforts, as good House-elves they would tidy up unless something really were at stake. There's no doubt this creates problems: if the key element is intent to free, that doesn't sit well with Dobby's remarks or his eventual freeing in COS; if it's the physical hand-to-hand passing of clothes (does Dobby catch or pick up the sock in COS? I can't rememeber) Hermione's hats are not a problem for the elves; if it's mere physical contact with clothes belonging to the masters (or having last been in physical contact with them - Lucius Malfoy again) then how are student clothes cleaned? There is an issue of definition here, too. It's hard to imagine how the Malfoys could prevent a determined Dobby from touching some item of clothing at home, so at some point the magic fails. Perhaps if students leave their dirty clothes in baskets and the house elves, motivated as they are, make sure they don't actually touch the items themselves? I agree, however with the underlying thought here: I believe the function of Hermione's hats in the story is to signal her drift into arrogance. Crucially, she never tries to find out if her tactic is working. Why does she not wonder why all those joyful free elves are not coming to thank her? David From amy_marblefeet at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 11:50:37 2004 From: amy_marblefeet at yahoo.co.uk (amy_marblefeet) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:50:37 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Matching Armchair Rethink Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88893 Amy sat at the end of the dock of Theory Bay, her bare feet dangling over the edge, scanning the horizon with her omnioculars. It was quiet all round, the Yellow Flag on the SAD DENIAL fluttering softly in the wind. There were new theories floating everywhere around the bay these days but Amy was more interested in the older ones. Ones that hadn't been seen on the bay since last June. It was true that some had not survived and many were now littering the floor of the bay, most bearing the name Florence Lestrange. The Hover Craft still lay in pieces on the beach front and LOLLIPOPS had not been seen in months. The Big Bang, too, had been mysteriously quiet. Something winked at Amy on the horizon. She turned the `zoom' knob and focused in. Perhaps it was the Imperius Arthur boat. Amy had been meaning to speak to someone about that. It wasn't that though. Amy wasn't sure what it was and squinted through the glasses. She had definitely seen it before. It looked like it could be one of a pair or perhaps part of a set. At it floated round Amy got a better view. She suddenly realised what it was. It did look comfy from this angle. But what was it doing out there? Amy clicked her heals three times, pressed her belly button and when that didn't work apparated to the matching armchair. <"))>< Ah yes, those old memory charm theories circling round Neville. Neville's behaviour is very different in OoP from how he behaves in the previous four books. He masters a spell almost as quickly as Hermione, he physically goes for Draco when the Slytherin insults St Mungos and he accompanies Harry to the Department of Mysteries. Doesn't sound much like the Neville "I don't want no trouble" Longbottom that we met in the first book. So what happened? Well the resurrection of Voldemort, the most feared wizard in 100 years and the escape of your parents torturers would be enough to make any Gryfindor start to take control. But was that it. Something has been itching my brain about the attitude of Neville and the theories around it. While it is perfectly fine to say that Neville only needed this slap in the face to wake himself up to the very powerful magical talent he controls is it enough to cover his behaviour before OoP? Pre-OoP it wasn't that he was lazy or unwilling to master his magical talent it was the fact he was under a memory charm. Now I am not about to go into all the variants of memory charm that Neville could possible be under as my computer would literally crack under the weight but I do recommend attending Elkins three part symposium on the subject. (Messages 38812, 38813, and 38848.) Just make sure that you get a seat at the back and look out for splinters. For my theory I propose that Neville is under a self inflicted, botched memory charm. Simply put Neville saw something awful when he was younger that so traumatised him that the infant, using his own uncontrollable magic, blocked it from his mind. So far so good for Neville. He doesn't want to look on this memory and he doesn't have to. The trouble for Neville is that now, some fourteen years after he cast the spell, it is wearing thin. We know that Memory Charms break down and wear away. Gildoroy Lockheart is slowly regaining his memory and the hex that back fired upon him was meant to make Harry and Ron loose their minds. Even one that powerful is slowly being worn down. Of course we know that a memory charm can be broken much faster through torture. Perhaps when we think of that we must remember that there are different intensities of Memory Charm: those to remove certain and discrete events, those to remove an entire memory of self and all the ones in-between. Perhaps a softer, weaker charm could be removed with less damaging side effects. The only person so far, that we have heard of, who has had a memory charm broken is Bertha Jorkins. Lets face facts though, Crouch probably slapped her with the strongest memory charm that he could safely get away with, probably went round to top it up once in a while too. Perhaps that is why Bertha's mind is so wrecked by the time Voldemort is done with her. He didn't just have to break one charm, it was several. But what, I hear you cry, has this got to do with the MATCHING ARMCHAIR (Marooned At The Court Hearing Ill-fated Neville Got A Reverse Memory Charm Hatching Amnesia-Invoking Results). That theory states that Neville received a Reverse memory charm when he was younger and already remembers everything. Well my theory is not that Neville remembers everything now but that he will remember everything in the future because in book six or seven he will be placed under a Reverse memory charm. This will allow him to see clearly what is already seeping through. I just pinched the word ARMCHAIR from Cindy's theory really as it handily contained the letters RMC in a row and she was the one who came up with the charm in the first place. So no one should toss a yellow flag in this direction by the fact that a Reverse Memory Charm is not exactly canon. Please. So what if we were only slightly off the mark when it came to our memory charm theories of the past? What if JKR does not have a MATCHING ARMCHAIR hidden in the back story of Neville? What if in the future she starts to play ARMCHAIR OLYMPICS? Yes! What if in book six or seven Neville gets: A Reverse Memory Charm/Hex And In Response Our Longbottoms Youths Memory Previously Inaccessible Comes- back Suddenly? Yes, yes I know it is a little fudged at the end but a little fudge never hurt anyone. It's when he gets into a position of power and starts pelting you with owls asking for advice that you start to worry. If Neville's is wearing down then perhaps all he needs is a short sharp burst of the Reverse Memory charm to finally break down the last few barriers that stand in the way. The effect would be rather like ripping off a plaster. I would like to point out at this point that I do not rule out that a Reverse Memory Charm comes from the same family as the Cruciatus Curse, an interesting side-effect discovered by a wizard of few morals. But what could this memory be? We know that Neville knows what happened to his parents. What if he is aware of what is happening inside his own brain and believes that when the charm finally breaks down he will see his parents being tortured? I could see Neville fighting this idea with all his strength. Desperately trying to keep everything swept under the carpet. However, what finally might push him into regaining his memory, is the fact that he wants to know what happened that night, exactly, and to see if he can remember anything of his parents before the attack. Remind you of a certain Mr Potter's problem with the dementors? In that case it was important for Harry to block out those memories to fight off the dementors. In this case I believe that it will be important for Neville to look upon this memory that he has tried to hide from. I don't think this memory will be of his parents attack though. I think it will be something else, probably to do with Snape. And I am afraid for Neville. I am afraid the content of his memory can only be good news for the reader. It will be awful. Truly horrific. A memory so bad that it will make all those featherboa wearing theorists rub their bloody little hands together and crack a sly smile. The chapter title will justifiable be called "Neville's worst memory" For it will be. And dare I say, dare I even whisper, just seven months after the disappointingly dud worthy OoP: It will bang. <"))>< The Armchair wobble precariously as it bobbed further away from the bay. Amy splashed her feet in the cool water in an attempt to propel herself back to shore. What she needed was an oar or a paddle a big paddle. Amy sighed as she lifted her gaze to the Big Bang, remembering the last time a big paddle had come into contact with a matching armchair that it had left in more pieces than Harry's Nimbus. Best not bother the owner of all that artillery anyway. A soft rushing sound was growing louder in the air. Amy shifted nervously on the cushions and looked around. She wondered if, as the Captain herself had once threatened, Theory Bay really was flat. No need to find out Amy thought as she gripped the sides of the Armchair and apparated back to the beach. She landed with a soft flump on the warm sand. The armchair was no where to be see. <"))>< Amy For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 12:14:48 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:14:48 -0000 Subject: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88894 Alina wrote: Snape isn't making himself unpopular to make Harry safe. I think what Rowling meant there was that Snape was planning to make Harry safe, however because he was already unpopular with the rest of the staff, they assumed he was planning to sabotage the game. Carol wrote: > Actually, Berit is right. The quote says quite clearly that he "made > himself unpopular" via his choice to referee the game. There's no > evidence that he's unpopular with the other teachers (e.g. Flitwick or Sprout) and he's constantly in McGonagall's company. Those two are > with Dumbledore almost as often as Ron and Hermione are with Harry or Crabbe and Goyle with Draco Malfoy. In fact, I'm pretty sure that > despite the show they make of the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry, > they're allies or even friends ("I couldn't look Severus Snape in the eye for weeks" after a Gryffindor defeat--why worry about looking > someone in the eye if they're someone you dislike?) Also, they work > together to get the useless Lockhart out of the way (and into Harry's and Ron's company) when Ginny Weasley is captured; they both oppose Umbridge, etc. And Dumbledore, of course, not only trusts Snape but worries about his safety when he sends him off on a prearranged mission in GoF. However much the students dislike Snape (and most of them, except the Slytherins, do), there's no indication that the teachers share their antipathy. Berit replied: Thanks for the support Carol :-) Especially the scene in CoS where the other teachers very happily are supporting Snape to get Lockhart out of the way is a good example of the mutual respect and friendship that exists among the teachers, Snape included (Lockhart excluded :- ). I advice everyone to read that passage again, it's one of those very rare occasions where Snape is not shunted away but receiving full support and up-backing :-)) A fun and beautiful passage! Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 12:44:24 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:44:24 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88895 Mandy wrote: Humm you're right. It is Neville's assumption that his uncle dropped him to see if he was magical, or that's what Neville was lead to believe by his family. They could have had other motives. I too am very suspictious of Neville's family, although I hadn't thought about the possiblity of DE/Uncle Algie knowing about part of the prophecy and attempting to kill Neville for LV. Very interesting. Berit replies: I don't really get the impression uncle Algie is a dire DE... He seems to be quite fond of Neville. He is the one who has supplied him with Trevor the toad and his new pet plant the Mimbulus Mimbletonia, none of which has killed or hurt him so far :-) Uncle Algie reminds me a little bit of Ludo Bagman; a somewhat childish, impulsive and rather rash "kid". Uncle Algie loved his nephew and so wanted him to be a wizard, he didn't really think of the consequences of testing him by dropping him from a window... A big child in a man's body. But then I also must say that I don't trust Ludo Bagman's wide, innocent-looking eyes, so I guess I shouldn't trust uncle Algie either :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 12:54:35 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:54:35 -0000 Subject: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040116134637.025f4900@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tanya Swaine wrote: > At 00:31 16/01/2004 -0800, you wrote: > > >K wrote > > > >You know it occurs to me that there's another reason he could have dropped > >hi off the balcony - the Longbottoms are, or appear to be, purebloods, maybe > >Uncle Algie felt that as a Squib Neville was an embarrassment to the family > >and would be less of an embarrassment if he had an 'accident'? Dead > >embarrassments being somewhat less embarrassing. Or if not an embarrassment > >just inferior and it was just better to put the boy out of his misery (sort > >of like the way the Spartans abandoned baby boys who were deemed to be too > >weak to have the potential to be Spartans). > > > >K > > > Tanya here. > > Yes, that scenario would match well with what Neville said about the > responses from his family after he > was dropped and bounced. That attitude might have been a bit more > widespread also. I mean if the DE's > were trying to breed their numbers up and one, had gasp, horror, a squib > baby. Pureblood pride and all > that. > > Tanya > The Longbottoms were members of the Order. How likely is it that they harboured thoughts about the purity of blood and were inclined to kill off their squib son so he couldn't defile their good name? Of course, even if Neville's parents were in the Order, their relatives like uncle Algie might still have the mind of a DE. But I can't see Alice and Frank letting uncle Algie throw their son out of a window if the intention was to harm him in any way. By the way; I don't have the book here with me, but doesn't the text say that uncle Algie didn't mean to throw Neville out of the window, just hang him out of it to "encourage" him to fight back with magic, but then he lost his grip and Neville fell? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 13:11:31 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:11:31 -0000 Subject: The eagle owl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: > Berit said: > [long interesting post majorly-snipped by Sea Change] > > > Anyone noticed any more eagle owl acticity in the books, apart from > > the owl that brings Draco a fresh supply of treats every week (that's > > an eagle owl if I remember corrrectly)? > > > ---------- > > Sea Change responds: > > No! What an interesting find! I had always assumed because Hedwig > was huge and prone to biting people that an eagle owl is what she was. > On rereading the first book, apparently her size and ill temper (and > perhaps other monstrous traits) are simply accountable to the fact > that she's the kind of owl that Hagrid would like, and it was him who > gave her to Harry. > > Maybe the eagle owl is the Malfoy family bird, and it appears whenever > Lucius is up to something? Berit replies: As Geoff has already pointed out, Harry's owl Hedwig is a snowy owl, an arctic breed. The mentionings of eagle owls that I know of from canon suggests that this owl breed probably is expensive to buy and therefore maybe is reserved for rich and important wizard families like the Malfoys? "Ordinary" wizarding families would keep a cheaper barn owl for instance. I don't think the owl that delivered a message to Voldemort was the Malfoy owl though; Lucius would probably have known it if his owl were delivering messages between Crouch Jr and Voldemort. But Lucius didn't know anything of Voldemort's plans for his imminent return, or that Crouch Jr was alive and well at Hogwarts until his mark burned upon his forearm at the end of GoF (he and the other DE's need to be filled in by Voldemort). So my guess is that the second eagle owl in canon belongs to the Crouch family. If anyone knows of any other eagle owl sightings in the HP books, please tell me! Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 13:31:44 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:31:44 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88898 Sylvia wrote: I started to wonder what would happen if a wizard lost his wand. ...would it somehow find its way back to him? Or would he have to buy another one? Geoff wrote: Try some wandless magic or borrow a friend's wand and do "Accio wand"? Berit replies: Or, if you've misplaced your wand in the dark nearby; say "Lumos" and voila, it lights up (like Harry did in the dementor scene in Little Whinging :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From alina at distantplace.net Fri Jan 16 13:53:58 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:53:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?) References: Message-ID: <000901c3dc38$3106e2c0$a6a09c18@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 88899 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alina" wrote: > > > > > Quote: > > > "'Snape was trying to save me?' > > > 'Of course,' said Quirrel coolly. 'Why do you think he wanted to > > > referee your next match? He was trying to make sure I dodn't do it > > > again... All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop > > > Gryffindor winning, he DID make himself unpopular...'" (PS p. 209 UK > > > Ed). > > > > > > Snape was willing to make himself unpopular to keep Harry safe... > > > > > Berit > > > > I'm pretty sure you're misreading that quote. Snape isn't making himself > > unpopular to make Harry safe. I think what Rowling meant there was that > > Snape was planning to make Harry safe, however because he was already > > unpopular with the rest of the staff, they assumed he was planning to > > sabotage the game. > > > > Alina. > > Actually, Berit is right. The quote says quite clearly that he "made > himself unpopular" via his choice to referee the game. There's no Carol Well, I guess it's a matter of opinion, as are most things. The reason I'm reading the quote that way is Quirrel's phrasing. If he said, "he made himself unpopular" instead of "he did make himself unpopular," I'd agree with you, but to me, the "did" sounds like the reason explaining why the teachers thought what they did. Ah well, just another question I'll never get to ask JKR. Alina. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 16 14:20:06 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:20:06 -0000 Subject: From the other side : Part 1 : Zacharias Smith and other lambda students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88900 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del: > I disagree with your conclusion that first-years don't ever make the > team because they lack the ability. Harry didn't, for example, and > I'm sure there were quite a few others over the past century who were > both very talented and very well trained when they went to Hogwarts > (James comes to my mind...). They could very easily have made it to > the team. But they weren't allowed to bring their broomsticks and to > do the try-outs. Geoff: I would agree to disagree. I see no reason why a promising player can't use a school broom. Possibly, there are not normally opening for new pupils in the teams; but Harry may be unusual in that he /is/ a promising player - and, remember, Gryffindor need a Seeker. As Mcgonagall says: "Heaven knows, we need a better team than last year. Flattened in that last match by Slytherin. I couldn't look Severus Snape in the face for weeks....." (PS "The Midnight Duel" p.113 UK edition) > > Del: >> Okay, you got me on that one :-) But if you don't mind me nit- > picking, you'll notice that all that the kids know was brought to > them through rumors. DD admits that the kids weren't given any > official version of what happened. So who knows *what* the kids > actually believe happened ?! How much do they know ? Weren't the > facts distorted in the rumor-spreading process ? Geoff: Who spread the rumours? The only people who knew that Harry had gone down to the Dungeons were Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore. Dumbledore may have said something to the staff who prepared the tasks - McGonagall, Snape etc. so any knowledge must have emanated from them as source. But beyond that, the rumour mill had no one to feed it. Geoff again: > > And if there is anyone (other than the Slytherins perhaps) who > > think the Dolores Umbridge is the first apparently sane and > > impartial person in power to come to the school, they either have > > led a very sheltered life or ought to be out looking for the > > marbles they have lost. > Del: > Dolores Umbridge : you have to know her to realise who she truly is. > Harry got on her bad side right away, but not everyone did. Many > students had actually no reason to fear her. Many students were > probably scared the year before by Moody's violent methods in DADA > classes, and got only more insecure with the whole matter of the > death of Cedric and LV's hypothetic return. So when Umbridge arrived, > preaches peace and non-violence, and delivering reassuring speeches > about the non-existence of LV, well, I guess she must have attracted > quite a few students. I remember how it was when I was a teenager : I > wanted excitement allright, but on my own terms, when *I* decided it. > So I honestly don't think that only the Slytherins liked Umbridge : I > suspect quite a few other students from all Houses must have liked > her too. She was apparently trying to bring peace, order and better > quality to the place : a lot of teenagers crave that. Geoff: She was? When I was a pupil at school, we often picked up vibes about the teachers from body language, comments overheard, reactions etc. Students must have picked up on the fact that Umbridge was not hitting it off with amny staff. Pupils who were present when she observed McGonagall couldn't have failed to sense the antipathy between them. We know that some of the pupils had certainly realised that Trelawney was mightily put out by Dolores (whether deserved or not). Dean (I think) who fell foul of her and had the same quill treatment handed out as Harry had already experienced. Any older student with any knowledge of English would have been concerned at the use of the name Inquisitor with all its undertones. Then we have the setting up of the Inquistorial Squad who are given powers to override the Prefects; who are they? Mainly sycophants and bullies from Slytherin. And Educational Decree number 23 which banned all organisations - the act of an impartial and charming lady trying to bring peace and order to the place? Hmmmm. OK, I take your point that you are trying to see the "real" Harry and not the one on a pedestal but I think anyone who looks at Harry objectively sees an ordinary teenage guy caught up, perhaps, in out of the ordinary situations but I do not believe that he seeks to be special. He wants to be just Harry. I like him, warts and all and I think that even those in the school who have thought him strange are beginning to see that, up to a point, he is just one of them. I would hate a Harry with a halo. From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 14:31:39 2004 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:31:39 -0000 Subject: CH9 discussion questions -- the twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88901 > I thought the issue of the twins was particularly interesting, at first > glance it might seem that JKR does treat them as interchangeable, but > actually there is a marked difference in personalities -- Fred is the > more extrovert, aggressive, the initiator of things like the bet, he's > the one that did nasty things to Ron as a child, etc, whereas George > is a bit more laid back and mature (it's George that Harry hands the > prize winnings to, which may indicate that Harry also senses this). > Despite appearing identical, people seem to have no trouble telling them > apart when they're near them (except Molly at the start of PS!). > > > "Kevin Lano" I agree. If you notice, Fred always speaks first whenever the twins have dialogue in the books. George is the one who got up to hug Mrs Weasley (with Ginny) when she returned after visint Mr W in hospital. Fred is definately the leader and I agree that George is more laid back about things, willing to go along with it because it's fun - he definately isn't a Percy! But not as forthright/extrovert as Fred. Ffi From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Jan 16 14:32:15 2004 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:32:15 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > <> The clothes aren't > cleaned magically wherever they drop them and left there. > > The House Elves are freed only if their master hands them some > clothing (like with Dobby at the end of COS). Dobby treats Harry > like a master in the scene in OOTP 27 where he warns Harry that > Umbridge is coming to the Room of Requirement. So presumably the > students count as "masters." But they still must hand clothing to > the Elves to free them. The Elves can pick up the dirty clothing of > the students and clean them without being freed. It is only being > handed the clothing that counts. > I do agree that it's probably only handing an elf clothes that will free him/her, but I don't think the elves necessarily have to pick up the clothing to clean it. I think it would be pretty easy for them to levitate the clothing into a basket (or just into the air) and zip it on down the the laundry, clean it with magic bubbles, and zip it back into a basket. So if it is indeed just picking up the clothing that frees them, there are ways to get around that in doing laundry. On the other hand, if the hats that Hermione leaves around would not free the elves, why are the elves avoiding the Gryffindor common room? Allie From pfsch at gmx.de Fri Jan 16 13:23:51 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:23:51 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88903 Hi Sylvia! Sylvia wrote: > Re-reading the chapter where Harry buys his wand, I started to > wonder what would happen if a wizard lost his wand. The wands chooses its owner. I suppose it searces her/him as well. Highly speculative I have to admit. In PoA Remus (I think) gives back their wands back to Hermione, Harry and Ron. Unless they look very distinguishable and Remus has a very good memory which wand belonged to whom, I reckon that wands tend to get back to their owners (In that case they might have given certain signs to Remus). Like some magical kind of magnatism. Bye Peter (who wishes his lost things could to the same) From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 12:16:12 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:16:12 -0000 Subject: Snape tried in court? And Rabastan Lestrange Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88904 This issue has probably been discussed before but I can't find it - so I would be grateful for any enlightening comments. We know from the scene of Karkaroff's trial in GoF that Dumbledore has spoken up in defense of Snape. If I remember correctly (I haven't got my copy here) it is said that 'Snape has been cleared in court'. Does this mean Snape has been under arrest at one point and brought into court, or has he just been mentioned and cleared during another trial? Also: is Rabastan Lestrange among the DE's brought into court together with Barty Crouch Jr.? Is he mentioned anywhere explicitly except on the Black Family tapestry? And what is the role of the DE's wives, for example Narcissa Malfoy? I think that apart from Bellatrix Lestrange, no women are mentioned as active DE's; but surely the wives cannot fail to notice their husbands are members? Yours severely, Sigune From pfsch at gmx.de Fri Jan 16 12:59:24 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:59:24 -0000 Subject: Houses and classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88905 Hi! "meriaugust" wrote: > I was wondering why Harry and the other Gryffindors never > have classes with the Ravenclaws. They have several classes with the > Slytherins (Potions, Care of Magical Creatures and flying lessons) > and have Herbology with the Hufflepuffs, and I have always assumed > that the mysterious Astronomy lessons were like mass lectures with > every student in the year participating, but why no specific > Ravenclaw lessons? I assume some of the extraordinary classes Hermione takes/took might be together with Ravenclaws. Classes like "ancient runes" or "muggle studies" and "Arithmancy" sound very theoretical so it might be these. They would quite fit to the image of Ravenclaw (theoretical, studying much etc). And since all the books are told from Harry's point of view, the fact just isn't given with whom Hermione has classes together. Other thoughts: The "pairing" (which house with whom) might be different in other years. Maybe in Ginny's year, Griffindor has classes together with Ravenclaw, since Ginny and Luna seem to know each other, they might have classes together. Bye Peter (sorted into Ravenclaw) From htfulcher at comcast.net Fri Jan 16 15:11:48 2004 From: htfulcher at comcast.net (marephraim) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:11:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. How common do you think Muggle-baiting is? Arthur's > statement that it might strike some people as funny suggests > that this is perhaps an attitude that he's encountered in the > past. Arthur has been criticized as viewing Muggles in a > patronizing, condescending manner ("Bless them!" is most > often cited as an example of this attitude). Does the fact that > he seems to have an awareness of his society's troublesome > attitudes towards Muggles counter that claim? Does Arthur's > statement shed a new light on him? I was going to say that Mr Weasley's attitude never struck me as condescending, but then it did strike me that his views are quite like the attitude of some English towards, say, India during the old colonial days. He is quite like those who developed a keen interest and respect for Indian and Hindu culture and found the more openly superior and dismissive attitudes of some in his country distasteful and immoral. That Mr Weasley doesn't see the real measure of achievement in Muggles having developed electricity, etc., shows his blindspots, but his keen interest in all things Muggles and life decisions that found him in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office speaks real devotion to the 'cause.' > 2. [snip, snip, snip] What business does Lucius have with Fudge? Bribery. > 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when > he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money. Money > has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys. We > know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. > Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning > of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial > situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's > face during the row the precipitated his leaving home. Does > Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological > reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially > rewarding? Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial > underpinnings? I think this follows on the same heals as the nr. 1 above. Mr Weasley resents the attitude of people like Malfoy. If Mr Weasley has blindspots to his own prejudices about Muggles, he sees with perfect clarity the corruption of bigotry that infects the Wizarding society as evidenced in people like Malfoy. Malfoy has money and instead of using for noble purposes chooses to spread the influence of classism and anti-Muggle prejudice. Mr Weasley's tone of voice is one of resentment that the higher (though admittedly flawed -- see above) moral ground that he trods is less followed by people who could do more with the resources at their disposal. I think Mr Weasley would love to see the day when Muggle-Wizard relations had developed to such a good degree that his office was closed entirely. In his own way, Mr and Mrs Weasley represent the same kind of idealism we see in Hermione regarding elf rights; they have grown wise over the years and work within the system to effect change, while Hermione is still young and dreaming of revolutionary immediate change. > 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in > OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter. Why do > you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione? Is it because she's > a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at > this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the > position of information supplier in the Trio? Do you believe > that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will > Harry develop emotional instincts of his own? How does this > acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as > a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who > is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)? Hermione's 'analysis of Sirius' is exactly that -- an analysis. She interprets and evaluates Sirius based on her experience of him, considerations of his history and current situation, and information she has gleened from others. On the other hand, it is often noted that HP is written from the third person limited perspective. What we see and know is dependent on what Harry sees and understands at the time. That Hermione might have any 'non-intellectual' intelligence (Harry does seem surprised when Hermione asks him how things are developing between himself and Cho, etc.) does not occur to Harry until OoP. In his own way, Harry is like Ron exclaiming, "Hermione, you're a girl!" > 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that > she doesn't know who he really was? If so, why not? I think this is just human nature. Scabbers was around a long time. Mentally, it would be hard to suppress all the memories and feelings one had for someone, or something, if you like, like that even if later revealed to be a deceiver. > 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire > for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a > prefect. She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George ('that's > everyone in the family!') [snip, snip, snip] This is the only concrete evidence I've ever found in canon to the possibility that Gred and Forge aren't really Arthur and Molly's children. (Although, I still don't believe it.) > > 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but > do you feel that Ron was a good choice? Does he truly have > latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to > make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the > Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)? What do > you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron > as prefect? Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his > older brothers? Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better > choice? "Well, Dumbledore must have had his reasons...." This is part of what I believe will turn out to be a correct insight on the part of the 'clues' series that Ron is only right when he's making a 'prediction,' a la divination. Harry and Ron, through Harry's perspective, are 'average' students. We've never seen the grade board and so can only take it for granted that there are many who do much better and many who do much worse than they (Potions aside). Students who make good grades tend to fall into two categories: those who make good grades and show it off, and those who make good grades with a sense of duty and concern that doesn't manifest itself in pride. We know Hermione falls in the latter category; she knows she gets good grades because she works very hard to get them. Perhaps Harry and Ron do as well. The fact that we get humourous sidenotes about Hermione checking Harry's and Ron's homework with comments about how dreadful Ron's work is gives us no clue to how dreadful everyone else's work is. Nor does it speak to the real potential Ron's work (often done lazily and sloppily) might actually reveal to the teachers. For all we know, Hermione's 'corrections' to Ron's homework might be little more than clafications of better ways to say it. I've seen many students who get the information on the page but need betas because their writing skills are so poor. There must be two prefects chosen from among each house's fifth year class. Perhaps it simply came down to Harry, Ron and Hermione, and maybe Neville in fourth place, as the best in that year for Gryffindor. This would fit neatly with the information we do have from Dumbledore that he gave the position to Ron because Harry already had enough on his shoulders. > > 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by > his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration? What > can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude? Does > Ron want to be like Fred and George? Is he? Gred and Forge are a team. It's easy to see how, growing up in the Weasley household, Ron would envy and admire them. Ron would never get away with some of the trick they pull on Percy, and as a team they can rely on each other. Until Harry, Ron didn't have anyone like that. Also, as the youngest son, but not youngest child, in a large family, Ron never developed the outgoing devil-may-care attitude the Twins express. While he feels ackward they jump into the middle of things and are commonly the centre of noisy attention. Like Harry wishing he had been found just having told a marvelous joke to a bunch of really cool students rather than being covered in stinkslap with 'Loony Lovegood' and Neville, Ron would dream of that kind of attention and bravery the Twins show daily. Consider this as also evidenced in the Mirror of Erised episode. > 14. Why does Moody show Harry the photograph of the Order, and > why does he think Harry would be interested in the picture of his > parents? Is he unaware of the reaction Harry might have to seeing > his parents with Pettigrew, or is he purposefully trying to provoke > that reaction? Is Moody unaware that Harry does have pictures of > his parents, and perhaps thinks that this is the first time Harry has > seen a photograph of them? He might justifiably be unaware of Harry's potential reaction. Personally, I found it hard in OoP not to confuse Harry's relationship with Moody with Harry's relationship with Moody/Crouch in GoF. The real Moody doesn't know Harry very well. Many people find it fascinating to see an old photo of loved ones, and that Moody himself has kept the photo gives us insights into him. Harry's reaction is based on his unresolved emotional conflict concerning what happened at the end of the previous year. It has already been discussed in this group at great length that Harry could have used some grief counselling and other assistence to help him deal with the burdons that are his. How well aware is Moody of Harry's homelife with the Dursleys? He's been there, but does he clearly know at the beginning of OoP how dreadfully nasty they really are? This scene is but one of so many that show Harry's (justifiable) self-focus in spite of, and to the detriment, of the situation and those around him. > 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the > original Order? Do you believe that some of the previously unknown > people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books? > Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living? This I hadn't even noticed until mentioned here! Yup! I think there's grist for the mill in this one. As the other motive for the scene, this may be a set up for (I don't have the book before me) the of whom Moody says, "We never did find him" (or words to that effect) turning up in some capacity. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 16 15:46:12 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:46:12 +0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology Message-ID: <1C9AA266-483B-11D8-94D1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88907 The post by punkieshazam (88875) pricked my conscience. I am sure that we all abhor the thoughtless and insensitive use of inappropriate language when referring to individuals or groups in the Potterverse. We can't be too careful; labels can be *so* socially divisive and it is all too easy to fall into unacceptable anthropo-centric thought patterns with their overtones of cultural imperialism. In an effort to maintain the high ethical standards of the site, I offer the following gentler, less stereotypically negative alternatives as replacements for terms that may have caused distress to non-existent beings. Centaur - integrationally-averse humano-equine quadruped Giant - corporally enhanced, culturally deprived indigent Goblin - vertically challenged post-revolutionary monetarist Hag - flesh re-cycling enthusiast House Elf - unsalaried involuntary home-help Merman - aquatic dwelling anthro-icthyomorph Mudblood - differently ancestored Muggle - the different ancestor Troll - cerebrally challenged, socially mis-aligned altitudinist Vampire - nocturnal haemo-phagiophile Werewolf - lunar modulated lupine lycanthropist Unfortunately, it is unlikely that publishers such as Bloomsbury or Scholastic will agree to replace the existing terms, (many with negative connotations) by alternatives; quite right too. I estimate it would consume 0.02% of the Brazilian rain-forest to provide the extra page-space. But I'm sure if we make an effort we can mentally replace the old with the new as we make our non-judgemental way through the series.. Kneasy (being socially concerned) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 16 15:56:13 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:56:13 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88908 You know, I've been mulling over Kneasy's vampire challenge, and I'm not sure there are *any* undead in the Potterverse. The walking mummy and the wriggling severed hand were only Boggart manifestations. The legendary Veela is undead, but the Potterverse counterpart has no hint of the grave. Quirrell's tale of meeting a zombie is regarded as highly dubious. Even Voldemort can't possess or re-animate a corpse. Much is made of the fact that Ghosts and Dementors can't walk. It seems that though they may have the appearance of corpses, such creatures have left their mortal bodies behind forever. Lupin speaks of a legend ( "it is said") that Dementors can turn living beings into creatures like themselves, but there is no indication that the graves on Azkaban are empty. Sirius is quite sure that when Barty Jr. was buried he stayed put (well, he didn't, but not because he'd come back to life. ) Then there's the Thestrals. They have strange powers, they suck blood, they look skeletal, they have glowing eyes. According to FBAWTF many wizards believe they're unlucky. But they also eat flesh, and breed. They're not dead. Transfiguration may give inanimate objects the semblance of beasts or even humans and make them move about. But if the Krum figurine is any indication, they are not truly alive. They don't eat or reproduce themselves. Dumbledore flat out tells us, "No spell can re-awaken the dead." Point is, there are a lot of things in the Potterverse that can look like re-animated corpses, and several ways in which wizards might produce such an illusion, the better to befuddle hapless Muggles or even superstitious wizarding folk. Is there anything we know about vampires *from the canon* which suggests they are dead, apart from their appearance? We've been told in several places that Muggle ideas about fantastic creatures are wildly inaccurate. Could it be that one of these inaccurate notions is the whole idea of a re-animated corpse? Pippin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 15:54:25 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:54:25 -0000 Subject: Snape tried in court? And Rabastan Lestrange In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > This issue has probably been discussed before but I can't find it - > so I would be grateful for any enlightening comments. > > We know from the scene of Karkaroff's trial in GoF that Dumbledore > has spoken up in defense of Snape. If I remember correctly (I haven't > got my copy here) it is said that 'Snape has been cleared in court'. > Does this mean Snape has been under arrest at one point and brought > into court, or has he just been mentioned and cleared during another > trial? snips I would assume that since Snape's role was that of a double agent that he could not have been tried by a full court, as there would have been too much of a chance that someone could have blown his cover to LV. When DD said that Snape had been cleared by the court, he may have been refrering to some sort of post-LV's-fall hearings that were used to clear up who was on what side. Snape turned back to DD's side at "gret personal risk" and did so before LV fell, so the hearing that Snape had could very well have been a mere formality. I don't think that Snape had ever been under arrest, but what really interests me in this situation is how someone as influential in the ministry as Lucius Malfoy could not have known about Snape being a traitor of the DEs. Meri From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 16 16:07:00 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:07:00 -0000 Subject: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > bboy_mn: > > In summary, I agree with Shaun, who is far more knowledgable that > > I am, that Head Boy is a broad school-wide honor bestowed upon a > > student who has distinguished himself in a variety of ways. > I also agree. But is it a possibility that Head Boy/Girl is an honor that is voted on my the class? I was just thinking about it and if it were also a popular vote thing, then that might explain why James, a non-prefect in at least his fifth year and a knowingly popular person got to be Head Boy. I'm not so sure if PErcy was well liked enough all around to get voted into the position but he was nice enough at the time to have a girlfriend, so who knows. Is it possible though that it could be put to a vote, though? Arya From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Fri Jan 16 16:33:52 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:33:52 -0600 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88911 {Pippin} You know, I've been mulling over Kneasy's vampire challenge, and I'm not sure there are *any* undead in the Potterverse. {Anne} Aw, Pip...don't give up. I Don't think Kneasy (or any of us really) is challenging the existence of undead Vampires in the HP world, simply WHO happens to be one. All any person in the Anti Vampire!Snape lobby wants is actual proof pointing directly to Snape--and not just indications--"batlike" attributes, flowing cloak, etc. Like in a court of law, what we're asking for is irrefutable evidence in which to convict Snape with. Thus far, such evidence has NOT been presented. Sure, you can alter the basic folklore, and you can include modern additions to it in order to point to vampiric "Seeming" traits on the part of old Severus...but no one has yet seen Snape display those traits. All we have are just hints--and ones that quite frankly CAN be applied to any number of alternate explanations as well as any variation of the Vampire, both in new and old incarnations... {Pippin} Point is, there are a lot of things in the Potterverse that can look like re-animated corpses, and several ways in which wizards might produce such an illusion, the better to befuddle hapless Muggles or even superstitious wizarding folk. Is there anything we know about vampires *from the canon* which suggests they are dead, apart from their appearance? We've been told in several places that Muggle ideas about fantastic creatures are wildly inaccurate. Could it be that one of these inaccurate notions is the whole idea of a re-animated corpse? {Anne} Possible, but as with the other observations made about Rowling's use of Myths, not likely. The universally accepted idea of the vampire is a walking, reanimated corpse, who feeds on the blood of the living (Which, if taken literally, even disqualifies the blood flavored lollis in Honeydukes as an indication of Vamp activity--the blood within is anything BUT fresh). The extraneous descriptives such as looks, the way they dress, even the presence of fangs (I don't think they had them in the original folklore--which brings up another argument against Snape as a Vamp--his teeth are obviously snaggly and irregular in the way they lay in his mouth according to Rowling--he would leave a readily identifiable mark behind when he went about feasting...) are variations on the original theme. And although Rowling can and does put her own spin on these creatures she's used so far, it bears repeating that she harkens back to the original folk-loric creature in each case--with little influence by modern ideas--(Again, Kneasy points out the House elves--who are, undeniably, Brownies). Their looks, habits, 'rules' that they live by are all consistent with the original descriptives given to them by real villagers long ago that believed in them, and passed the stories on throughout time. And also, Rowling HAS indicated there ARE vampires--although Quirrel's experiences could be discounted as a cover for what he was really doing in the Black Forest--Hagrid (who has never lied thus far in the series) stated that he had an altercation with one during his time spent trying to recruit the giants for Dumbly. So, we're back to the beginning...who is the vampire, and who are the references pointing to? And who displays--noticeably and without question, and without 'altering' the *basic*, world wide accepted descriptions--the traits of the Vampire? Anne (Whose tempted to see if she can prove that Sirius will come back as a vampire....yes folks. I AM crazy.....) From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 16:44:45 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:44:45 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I would like to add Ludo Bagman's brother Otto. > > I don't have the books to hand, but I believe he was prosecuted for > charming a lawnmower. He's just too good to waste. > > David Annemehr: Aha! I sense a pattern here! Otto Bagman and Aberforth Dumbledore are working together, placing inappropriate charms on things efficient in getting rid of grass! These questions remain: Would getting rid of grass help Dumbledore's side or Voldemort's? Are Otto and Aberforth attempting to enhance or hinder the grass-shearing capabilities of lawnmowers and goats, or are they trying to apply them to some alternate purpose? Look for answers to these and other questions in the next issue of the Quibbler. Annemehr whose guilt feelings in posting a message like this are assuaged by asserting that with JKR you never know... From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 16:57:30 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:57:30 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > As I was rereading the Sorceror's Stone, I came across a line at the > end that sounded similar to a line at the end of OotP, both > coincidentally, by Dumbledore. > In PS/SS, Dumbledore says to Harry ..."The truth." Dumbledore > sighed. "It is a BEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE thing, and should therefore be > treated with great caution..." > > In OotP: "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries," interrupted > Dumbledore, "That is kept locked at all times. It contains a force > that is at once more WONDERFUL AND MORE TERRIBLE than death, than > human intelligence, than forces of nature..." > > Ok, yet again, I am making no sense. But the truth, or being true are > similar and word play can be introduced I would suppose. Suppose what > is locked in the Department of Mysteries, is the Truth, and Harry is > very true apparently to his friends and his missions and his will to > stop the dark side? The whole argument with Dumbledore skirts around > the truth, and Dumbledore speaks of the DoM and its little secret. Annemehr: Oh, I think you are making a lot of sense! For one thing, I think real truth is an even rarer commodity in this world than real love is. I could even reason that Truth is what saved Harry from being possessed by Voldemort. Harry, hoping Dumbledore would end the pain by killing him, is saved by the thought that he would see Sirius again. I'm sure JKR means this to be the truth, a truth Harry needs to have reinforced by Luna later on, and so is important. And you are so right to bring up Dumbledore and his reluctance to reveal the truth as he knows it. To take things one baby step further, how important is it that Harry now carries a scar on his right hand: "I must not tell lies?" Personally, I think this must have importance beyond the battle of wills between Harry and Umbridge. Thanks for the great post, Sawsan. I hope someone can take this even further. Annemehr From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 16 17:13:49 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:13:49 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88914 Allie wrote: On the other hand, if the hats that Hermione leaves around would not free the elves, why are the elves avoiding the Gryffindor common room? Berit replies: Dobby tells Harry why the elves won't go near the Gryffindor common room: Because they are insulted by Hermione's actions. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 17:20:22 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:20:22 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <1C9AA266-483B-11D8-94D1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > The post by punkieshazam (88875) pricked my conscience. Annemehr: Yeah, okay, that was funny. But I'm going to agree with punkie's assertion that we shouldn't ordinarily call muggle-borns "mudbloods." It leads to imprecision of thought. JKR means for this word to be very rude, and when we read it in the books, we are meant to be brought up short by it; it's supposed to make a certain impression. But if we spend years typing posts that use "mudblood" as just your everyday synonym for "muggle-born" I think some of that impact is bound to be lost. I may be completely off here; after all, it did seem to be universally noticed that Snape called Lily a "mudblood." Still, I'd rather be using the WW words as JKR's defined them, for accuracy's sake. Make sense? Annemehr who realises that no actual muggle-borns were harmed by the use of the term "mudblood" From frost_indri at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 16:07:53 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:07:53 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88916 > Sylvia wrote: > I started to wonder what would happen if a wizard lost his > wand. ...would it somehow find its way back to him? > Geoff wrote: > Try some wandless magic or borrow a friend's wand and do "Accio wand"? > > Berit replies: > Or, if you've misplaced your wand in the dark nearby; say "Lumos" and voila, it lights up (like Harry did in the dementor scene in Little Whinging :-) >>> Frost: Somehow, I just don't think the Lumos would work normally. Well, maybe... ok, what I'm thinking is this: 1) Super Adrenalin. If that wasn't a moment where adrenalin would rush through the blood, I don't know what is. As it is, we don't really know how adrenaline effects magic, but we do know how it effects the body, which includes sharpening of the senses and a sort of ability to hyper-concentrate on what is at hand. Since we know that magic does need concentration, it is likely that Harry's (and any other wizards) magical abilities might be a bit heightened at that moment, like strength is in everyone. 2) His hand was inches from the wand. So it is possible that the close proximity allowed for the wand to received the magical command as well. We don't know what would have happened, say, it had been several feet away. So, unless adrenalin wasn't involved in the equation, it is not likely to work on a regular basis. However, if adrenalin didn't have anything to do with it, it could work if in close proximity. Or, might turn out that it would work without those two, but somehow I don't think it would. *shrugs* But that is one person's opinion. As for finding a lost wand, well... other than I don't think it's likely that a Wizard would loose his/her wand (I imagine that it must become like loosing your left/right hand, they use it so much) I think I agree with the borrowing someone else's wand, or having them "accio" it for you. Frost From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 16:42:40 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:42:40 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88917 I wonder just what are the qualifications of being an auror? I mean we know from OotP that one has to exceed academically as well as have no criminal record; but I wonder after all Harry has done for Hogwarts as well as the rest of the Wizarding World, if the Ministry of Magic would make an exception for him? I can see it now: Harry walks into the Ministry of Magic for an interview to get a job as an auror. He sits down and looks at the interviewer, who reminded him a lot of Percy in his manner. "Well Mr. Potter. You have quite an impressive resume! You stopped the Dark Lord as a child and Vanquished him as a young adult! You learned how to summon your patronus at age 13! You have fought Dark Magic on a yearly basis throughout your Hogwarts career! I am impressed! But wait.... wait...I see hear you have received low marks in Potions and you have violated the law against underage magic at least twice, I am sorry Mr. Potter, but we are not able to take you on as an auror with marks like these, but I hear Misuse of Muggle artifacts needs someone now that Perkins has passed on." he said brightly, pointing down the hall. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 17:33:53 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:33:53 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: I Don't think Kneasy (or any of us really) is challenging the existence of undead Vampires in the HP world, simply WHO happens to be one. All any person in the Anti Vampire!Snape lobby wants is actual proof pointing directly to Snape--and not just indications-- "batlike" attributes, flowing cloak, etc. "K" What I don't understand is why the above attributes can't be used as sign? I think what the anti-vampire groups want is to see Snape drinking blood and showing his fangs and JKR isn't going to show us that. She gives us little clues here and there. That's what she has done throughout the books. Snape isn't going to be walking around with a vampire neon sign on his back. Anne: Like in a court of law, what we're asking for is irrefutable evidence in which to convict Snape with. Thus far, such evidence has NOT been presented. "K" Asking for irrefutable evidence on anything in the HP books is just about impossible. Isn't that what makes all of this so much fun? :-) Anne: Sure, you can alter the basic folklore, and you can include modern additions to it in order to point to vampiric "Seeming" traits on the part of old Severus...but no one has yet seen Snape display those traits. "K" I don't think that's necessarily true either. There are many traditional vampire traits that one can associate with Snape but because it's only given in hint form most people won't accept them. Plus I don't think too many people are expecting or wanting JKR to totally ignore traditional vampirism. Some of us just believe she will add her own version of vampire in the books with mostly traditional traits. Anne: All we have are just hints--and ones that quite frankly CAN be applied to any number of alternate explanations as well as any variation of the Vampire, both in new and old incarnations... "K" That's exactly right. All we have are hints but lordy that's all we ever get about anything. If we can't go by the hints then we might as well shut the board down and not discuss anything. Lupin wasn't introduced as a werewolf but there were hints as to what he was (I missed them all). Sirius wasn't introduced in OoP as the one who would die but there were hints from early on (missed those also). Speaking of Lupin, is that really the moon his boggart becomes? Looks more like an orb to me. As in a prophecy orb. Is it really going to be Harry and Hermione? The hints seem to point, IMO, to Harry and Ginny. Is Hermione's boggart really 'failure'? I don't think so but others do. See, we all tend to look at these clues differently. It is hard to figure out where JKR is going on many, many things. Anne: The universally accepted idea of the vampire is a walking, reanimated corpse, who feeds on the blood of the living (Which, if taken literally, even disqualifies the blood flavored lollis in Honeydukes as an indication of Vamp activity--the blood within is anything BUT fresh). "K" I think those lollie's are just to remind us there are vampires out there. I don't think we can dismiss this at all. Anne: And although Rowling can and does put her own spin on these creatures she's used so far, it bears repeating that she harkens back to the original folk-loric creature in each case> "K" I agree except maybe in the case of Hagrid's mom and dad and I won't go there. But again, when one says Snape looks like the traditional vampire with his pallid, thin, gaunt face and his black clothes it's dismissed. Yet I have a feeling if vampire Snape dressed like Lockhart and had rosy cheeks then the anti-vampire crowd would be screaming that traditional vampires always wear black and have pale skin. Anne: And also, Rowling HAS indicated there ARE vampires--although Quirrel's experiences could be discounted as a cover for what he was really doing in the Black Forest--Hagrid (who has never lied thus far in the series) stated that he had an altercation with one during his time spent trying to recruit the giants for Dumbly. "K" It doesn't matter what Quirrel was really doing in the Black Forest. He could have still run across vampires. Anne: > So, we're back to the beginning...who is the vampire, and who are the references pointing to? And who displays--noticeably and without question, and without 'altering' the *basic*, world wide accepted descriptions--the traits of the Vampire? "K" Snape. All the hints point to Snape but I don't believe he is the only one. Anne, I can assure you that you know much more about vampire folklore than I do. I enjoy the info you give. That's why I'm so surprised that you just can't see Snape for what he is. You just need to let go and join the vampire crowd. Plus I'm waiting for you to tell me why Dumbledore is one. Anne > (Whose tempted to see if she can prove that Sirius will come back as a vampire....yes folks. I AM crazy.....) "K" Please try. I am going to show some examples of Snape and traditional vampire folklore. Hopefully very soon. It's all there. Honest, it is. From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 17:34:42 2004 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:34:42 -0000 Subject: Genetics (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > I have a strange question that I know has been touched upon in some > ways by past posts. It has been 17 years since I had genetics so my knowledge is very rusty. How is magic passed down genetically? > 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. > 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. > 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? > 4. Is magic genetic at all? Tigerpatronus here: Well, I'm not a geneticist per se, but my PhD is in molecular virology and my postdoc is in neuroscience, so I have some knowledge of genetics. If there is genetic componant to wizardry, the genes obviously have low penetrence, which means that the genes may influence your chances of having magic, but other factors (environmental, intangible) also contribute. A good example would be late-onset Alzheimer's Disease (near and dear to my heart right now, and thus my model for everything.) There are three alleles (form of a gene, like blue or brown eyes) that you can have for the ApoE gene. The most common allele for the ApoE gene in the US and globally is ApoE3. The "3" is the important part. A less common but seemingly protective allele is ApoE2. Remember that you have 2 alleles for each gene, one from your mom and one from your dad. If you have any combination of "2" and "3" alleles, (2/2, 2/3, or 3/3), your changes of developing AD by age 90 are about 20%. But one in five people gets it. No one knows why. (Note that the above notations are not fractions but representations of two alleles. Thus "2/3" does not mean "two-thirds," but "an ApoE*2* allele and an ApoE*3* allele.) The ApoE4 gene is the "bad" one. If you have one "4" allele (genotype of either 2/4 or 3/4), you have about a 50% chance of getting AD by the time you're 90. But half of people will be just fine. If you have two "4" alleles, (4/4), you unlucky person, you have a 91% chance of getting AD by the time you're 90, but 1 out of ten people with this genotype are walking around, just fine. Call them AD Squibs. So here's the summary: no genotype is absolutely protective against AD. No genotype is absolutely predictive of AD. Other factors prevail. It must be so with magic. For a quick summary of other AD factors, see the bottom of this post. That said, I deeply hope the answer to your question is your #4 (no genetic component). OT: When, in the new Star Wars trilogy, they introduced "midichlorians," (obviously a corruption of the term and concept of mitochondria,) I was incensed, and I can't take the SW franchise even the slightest bit seriously. Indeed, my acquiescence to seeing the second installment involved several blenders-ful of strawberry daqueris. Back to HP: One of the lovely aspects of the HP saga is that the story is about philosophy and characterization and humanity, which are the rhelm of fiction, and not about the science of wizardry. (Why? Because it's *magic,* that's why!) I think mixing science or sci fi (genetics) with fantasy diminishs both. I don't want to offend anyone with this next part. If your religion is literalist and is very important to you, please stop reading here. You have a perfect right to your beliefs. But stop reading here. Mixing scifi into fantasy is akin to creation science. It's neither fish nor good fowl (slight pun intended.) Creation science and other scientific methods that attempt to prove the existence of G-d or other deities are misguided and are not good religion and are certainly terrible science. Anyway, my $.02. TigerPatronus Other factors that are protective against AD (or, how to keep reading the HP saga well into your 90s): Eat a fish per week. (50% reduction in AD incidence.) Take Advil. (More than 2 years constant dosage with ibuprofin reduced AD incidence by 50%. No other NSAID or pain killer was effective. NSAIDs have GI complications. Consult an MD.) Learn. Study. Read. (Higher education appears protective, perhaps by 30%.) Anti-oxidant therapy. (At least delayed progression.) Treat thyroid disease. (Thyroid disease may be involved in neurodegeneration.) Smoke. Then stop. (I hesitate to mention this one, as no one wants to be accused of promoting a habit that causes heart disease and lung cancer, but there is a correlation. It is unknown if there is a selective mechanism involved, such as the possibility that smokers don't live long enough to develop AD because they all die of smoking-related causes, or maybe that smokers who survive smoking are nearly immortal and not even AD is going to kill them, or if there is something neuroprotective in the tobacco. Receptors that attach to nicotine have been mentioned as possibly interacting with some of the players in AD, such as the beta-amyloid protein.) TK From CoyotesChild at charter.net Fri Jan 16 17:38:11 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:38:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3dc57$846e9150$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88920 > > Annemehr: > Oh, I think you are making a lot of sense! For one thing, I think > real truth is an even rarer commodity in this world than real love is. > I could even reason that Truth is what saved Harry from being > possessed by Voldemort. Harry, hoping Dumbledore would end the pain > by killing him, is saved by the thought that he would see Sirius > again. I'm sure JKR means this to be the truth, a truth Harry needs > to have reinforced by Luna later on, and so is important. > > And you are so right to bring up Dumbledore and his reluctance to > reveal the truth as he knows it. Iggy de-cloaking here: I think the real problem with this, as you inadvertently confirmed yourself, is that all truth and realist is subjective. There is a basic tenet of psychology that states: There is no Truth, there is only Opinion. There is no Reality, there is only Perception. To simplify: What is True or Real to you, may not be True or Real to me. It's all subjective. (There is "Truth", and there is "truth." The latter of the two, is something that is a fact that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. The former is an absolute regarding the nature of existence... at least, IMHO.) I'm still inclined to believe that what's behind the door is Love. Love exists in some form that shares a more common ground in more people's perceptions. For example: Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists can all find a common ground so far as Love is concerned. But what each of those groups see as Truth (especially where religion is concerned) is vastly different. Love on its own, can be more terrible and more wonderful than death. If you love someone with all your heart and they die, you feel as though your soul has died... a fate worse than death. When you love someone with your whole being and they leave you, you feel that death would be preferable to the pain you endure. When you love your child, or your spouse, with everything you have, you would rather give your own life than ever see them come to harm. On the other hand: When you sacrifice yourself out of pure love, even death is an acceptable price to pay for the well being and continued life of those you love. When you feel the love of others supporting you in your life, there is nothing that you can't accomplish or endure. If you feel true love within your heart, knowing that you have loved and been loved, then when your time comes, you can face it with no regrets. > Annemehr: > > To take things one baby step further, how important is it that Harry > now carries a scar on his right hand: "I must not tell lies?" > Personally, I think this must have importance beyond the battle of > wills between Harry and Umbridge. Iggy again: It already has proved important. He has the scar on his hand because he was not willing to betray what he had witnessed with his own eyes. Umbridge was attempting to conceal and invalidate what had happened, and was willing to use any means to do so. Harry knew that Voldemort had returned, that he had witnessed Cedric's murder, and that they were all in danger. Umbridge was trying to suppress any attempt to form an active resistance to Voldemort, and any threat to Fudge's power. Harry was leading a group that was secretly willing to break the law in order to train to better defend themselves and those they care about from Voldemort, and even from Fudge. Those are just two examples of the Umbridge vs Harry battle of wills.. with lies being at the center of the whole issue. (When Harry told the truth, Umbridge said he was lying. Yet on the other hand, Harry was willing to lie to defy Umbridge, Fudge, and Voldemort...) Otherwise, the theory is an interesting one to pursue. (Let's see if you can convince a definite skeptic on this issue.) Iggy McSnurd (*disappearing with a swirl of his invisibility cloak*) From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 16 18:16:17 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:16:17 -0000 Subject: I must not tell lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88921 annemehr wrote: how important is it that Harry now carries a scar on his right hand: "I must not tell lies?" Personally, I think this must have importance beyond the battle of wills between Harry and Umbridge. Arya now: Just a question, but do we have canon to support the assumption the quill left scars that are still visible? We know Harry had to nurse the wounds and such and even eased the pain with the Murlap but are we just assuming there is now an indelible etching of "I must tell lies" in the form of a scar or do we know this from the book? I just can't recall and everyone seems to always assume or know he does. The reason I wonder about this detail is because I've been trying to think about clues as to whether Harry might be a metamorphamagus or not. It's obvious from Tonks the skill allows her to change facial features and hair. She also comments to Harry that if he had the skill he might be able to cover up his scar. Now, aside from wondering whether his curse scar is an ordinary enough scar to be treated like this, I went back and thought of the other scars Harry should have and whether he still has them. If he were a m-magus, then he might be able to heal/cover the scars from the quill by simply loathing them and wishing them away. Just my thoughts... From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Fri Jan 16 18:36:22 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:36:22 -0600 Subject: Do the Dead Walk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88922 "K" What I don't understand is why the above attributes can't be used as sign? I think what the anti-vampire groups want is to see Snape drinking blood and showing his fangs and JKR isn't going to show us that. She gives us little clues here and there. That's what she has done throughout the books. Snape isn't going to be walking around with a vampire neon sign on his back. {Anne} No, he wouldn't advertise....but thing is is that ALL he has is looks so far...and quite frankly, with all the "Goths", "Dark Heroes" and other similar creatures---like Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde--it's hardly a call sign anymore for vamps...in fact, if you want to combine modern vamp ideas into the mix, and go by clothes alone--Vamps nowadays show up on movies dressed in spikes and leather most of the time (Blade, Lost Boys, From Dusk Til Dawn, Near Dark....etc etc etc....). "K" Asking for irrefutable evidence on anything in the HP books is just about impossible. Isn't that what makes all of this so much fun? :-) {Anne} I have to agree with that--by the same token, though, Rowling does eventually shove it in our face, stating the facts in clear English (Rita is a beetle animagus, Lupin a were wolf, Hagrid a half giant....)---even Lupin was hard to miss once the clues were all there...and the thing is, after everything Rowling has said about Sev, including the "Watch out for him" quote in regards to book seven....she hasn't pointed to him as a vamp either. Unless, of course, he finally becomes prey to one in book seven and comes back...then we really WOULD have to watch out for him. "K" I don't think that's necessarily true either. There are many traditional vampire traits that one can associate with Snape but because it's only given in hint form most people won't accept them. Plus I don't think too many people are expecting or wanting JKR to totally ignore traditional vampirism. Some of us just believe she will add her own version of vampire in the books with mostly traditional traits. {Anne} Again, I don't disagree with your assessment of how she might handle the vampire myth. I do find it unlikely she would draw from the more modern vampire movies, or from things like role playing games (Vampire: The Masquerade has just about every vampiric and near-vampiric idea you could ever hope to think of, and does an excellent job of making it all look smooth). Unfortunately, a lot of the 'well this is how he could be a vampire' stems from these sources...and again,,,it isn't that I'm ignoring hints...it's that the ones pointing directly to Severus simply are not there, but for the looks and the 'bat-like' traits he shows when swooping down a hallway... "K" That's exactly right. All we have are hints but lordy that's all we ever get about anything. If we can't go by the hints then we might as well shut the board down and not discuss anything. I don't think so but others do. See, we all tend to look at these clues differently. It is hard to figure out where JKR is going on many, many things. {Anne:} Also true, but again, look to her track record in retrospect to many things and you will see that she really does not stray far at all from original folklore concepts....we may miss the clues, but they are obvious and unquestionable... "K" I think those lollie's are just to remind us there are vampires out there. I don't think we can dismiss this at all. {Anne} Heh....well, I don't either, but the point there wasn't to dismiss them as a clue, but to demonstrate that IF we really pared down the description, the lollipops would be out of the running...even now, they may be, but we will have to wait on that score. "K" I agree except maybe in the case of Hagrid's mom and dad and I won't go there. {Anne} Actually, in Norse myth I believe the gods slept with the giants....in Greek, some of the ancestors of the gods themselves were giants--so there is mythic support for 'human' (or human sized) people mating with giants. Stretching it a bit, yes...but if you want a not-so-stretchable bit of proof--then there were the giants that were born of Angels and Mankind in the bible--although that's a bit retrospect...although I think those giants--some of them at any rate, went on to find wives among Eve's children (will have to go dig up the bibles at home for that one--my monotheistic mythology is not so solid as my folkloric...^^;) "K" But again, when one says Snape looks like the traditional vampire with his pallid, thin, gaunt face and his black clothes it's dismissed. {Anne} Actually, his skin is described in our first meeting as 'Sallow"--in other words yellow and sickly--Jaundiced. Not a result of undead but rather a liver or kidney condition. "K" Yet I have a feeling if vampire Snape dressed like Lockhart and had rosy cheeks then the anti-vampire crowd would be screaming that traditional vampires always wear black and have pale skin. {Anne} I protest either way simply because you can be pale and sickly without being a vampire...and so many different 'bad guys' and 'monsters' have dressed in black over the ages that its a huge clich? by now...as for the rosy cheeks--since a vampire tends to have such things when they are well-fed, according to popular myth (all that nice warm stolen blood running through the old undead veins), I actually would not have objected (provided the other indicators were also there). Especially since Snape is surrounded by potential meals 24/7. The last thing you would want is a starving vampire hanging around all of those tasty kids...and as for clothes--I would actually expect 'normal' or even Lockhart-style clothing from a vampire trying to hide itself (especially a spy like Snape who spends most of his life keeping people from finding out who he 'really' is). After all, who would seriously think the gent running around in pastel blues and pinks was a vicious blood sucking vamp...?(unless we're talking comedy here, that is). "K" It doesn't matter what Quirrel was really doing in the Black Forest. He could have still run across vampires. {Anne} Again, stating comments from other posts, including Quirrel's trustworthiness. He you can question his assertations since he spent a lot of time lying...Hagrid hasn't lied, although he has tried (unsuccessfully) to hide the truth. Point is--you can doubt Quirrels assertations, or those made about him...Hagrid is put up as someone who you can trust his word on--especially when he's talking about something he himself has done... "K" Snape. All the hints point to Snape but I don't believe he is the only one. Anne, I can assure you that you know much more about vampire folklore than I do. I enjoy the info you give. That's why I'm so surprised that you just can't see Snape for what he is. You just need to let go and join the vampire crowd. Plus I'm waiting for you to tell me why Dumbledore is one. {Anne} Nope, sorry. Much as I enjoy reading vamp stories, much as I enjoyed participating in White Wolf games (Including the Live Action Camarilla---Lady Isabella Lamont, Gangrel Elder, 8th gen, at your service, thank you...), and much as I like mucking about with the concept of Vampirism as the next person, I really do not see real proof of Vampire!Snape...if for no other reason than because it's TOO easy...and there are no real indications of vamp activity around him. As for Dumbly, as I said in a post shortly after that, I threw that idea out more for fun than any proof....although I suppose I could go about trying to gather cannon for it...lol. It would be a scary concept though...and isn't Harry being set up to be betrayed by one he trusts closely, according to Rowling...*winks* "K" Please try. I am going to show some examples of Snape and traditional vampire folklore. Hopefully very soon. It's all there. Honest, it is. {Anne} ^^ Please do...I still have my plate of crow ready should someone manage to convince me before Rowling actually writes it... From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 19:28:37 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:28:37 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > I wonder just what are the qualifications of being an auror? I mean we > know from OotP that one has to exceed academically as well as have no > criminal record; but I wonder after all Harry has done for Hogwarts sachmet96 That no criminal record could be a problem for Harry. He tried to use an unforgivable and even if it's not on record he might get asked if he has ever used such curses, he can now either lie or tell the truth but when he tells the truth he condems himself as a criminal doesn't he? On the other hand if he lies and it is found out later he will get problems too. So I can't see him as an auror and I don't think there should be exceptions just because he is famous. He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above average. For example he is good in DADA but not better than the other students he just had the chance to learn the things earlier. His fellow students in the DA have shown the same abilities as him (even the patronus) they were just not given the chance to learn them. So I am not even sure if he would be qualified to be an auror. And I personally can't see him as an auror after all they have to follow rules and orders and Harry is exceptionally bad at this :-) From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 19:37:24 2004 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:37:24 -0000 Subject: I must not tell lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arya" wrote: Just a question, but do we have canon to support the assumption the quill left scars that are still visible? We know Harry had to nurse the wounds and such and even eased the pain with the Murlap but are we just assuming there is now an indelible etching of "I must tell lies" in the form of a scar or do we know this from the book? I just can't recall and everyone seems to always assume or know he does. Now AP: I read this part just last night, but don't have the book with me to cite page numbers. When Harry is talking to Dobby in the common room late at night, he notices the scar on his hand as he closes his book, and the text says something like, "which he thought would probably never fade completely" (poor paraphrase, but I believe the idea is right!). Seeing the scar is what makes him think to ask Dobby if there is a place for the DA to meet. I think it is interesting that a few lines later, Harry clenches his hand on the book to make the scar stand out even more. I have the feeling that this scar is more meaningful to him than the one on his forehead, because it represents to him his choice to stay true to what he knows happened to him and his willingness to pay the consequences for that choice. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 16 19:38:25 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:38:25 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dursleys and Memory Charms References: <1074214777.5930.14881.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000d01c3dc68$4ff87ba0$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 88925 Christy wrote: >It would seem that this applies to any person who is brought into the >wizard world, so to speak. Hermione's parents must know where their >daughter is... they've been to Diagon Alley, in fact. And there are >several parents of students who are either muggle-born or half and >half. I can't imagine that the MoM goes around and modifies the >memories of all those people. I find it more likely that perhaps >people who are against the idea (can you see a family like the >Dursley's getting a letter from Hogwarts if they didn't have any >previous connections to it? They'd probably laugh it out of the house) >or really don't need to know (like extended family: aunts, uncles, >etc.). Remember Petunia knows all about the WW, because of Lily. The one overarching thing which determines the way the WW behaves towards Muggles, is that the _Muggles_ _mustn't_ _find_ _out_. Now there are two types of scenario in which a Muggle _might_ find out about the WW. The first one is where there's an isolated or a one-off occurrence (Peter's confrontation with Sirius, or the World Cup, for example). In those circumstances, all that's got to be done is to round up any Muggle witnesses and wipe their memories of the specific event - the spell is put on the Muggle and that's that. All memory of those few minutes is gone and all the victim gets is a headache if they try to remember. But there's another scenario in which a Muggle has a _constant_ reminder of the WW. A relative at Hogwarts would be an example, or possibly a wizard family as neighbours. Canon tells us that Hogwarts itself is magically protected to look like something different if a Muggle chances by, and it's fair to assume that that sort of "don't notice me" spell is also built into other WW buildings - the Leaky Cauldron, St Mungo's, and the rest all look like somewhere that your eyes just slide across. I wonder if there's something similar for _people_. A member of the WW (like a Hogwarts student, but possibly also the MoM officials who are in touch with the Muggle PM) also has a spell put on them by the Ministry so that the Muggles around them don't notice the fact that there's anything remarkable going on. A very easy way to hide someone in plain sight. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 19:38:38 2004 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:38:38 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <1C9AA266-483B-11D8-94D1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > The post by punkieshazam (88875) pricked my conscience. > > I am sure that we all abhor the thoughtless and insensitive use of > inappropriate language when referring to individuals or groups in > > the > Potterverse. > Kneasy > (being socially concerned) Omigod, you're soooo funny. I advance a few additions to your list: Muggle: Person who is Differently Abled (repeated for riffing reasons) Wizard: Magically Enabled Dark Wizard: Ambiguously moralled Magically Enabled ("Dark" has such negative overtones, not to mention the slightest racist tinge.) Hogwarts: Elitist educational opportunity inaccessable to the Differently-Abled. Ministry of Magic: Government agency devoted to the continued ignorance of the Differently-Abled about denied educational and other opportunities. Potion: a mind- or otherwise-altering substance that, but for the ignorance propagated by the Ministry of Magic, would be a Scheduled Substance. Ollivander: Controller of the Means of Wand Production Cornish Pixie: Person of Northen extraction and diminutive stature with ADHD. Fluffy: Person of Tricephalic quadrupedal canidity From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 16 19:50:04 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:50:04 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > {Pippin} > You know, I've been mulling over Kneasy's vampire challenge, > and I'm not sure there are *any* undead in the Potterverse. > > {Anne} > Aw, Pip...don't give up. I Don't think Kneasy (or any of us really) is challenging the existence of undead Vampires in the HP world, simply WHO happens to be one. << *I* am challenging the existence of undead Vampires. In fact, I challenge the existence of undead in the Potterverse, period. I hereby state the theory that all the things that look like undead or have a reputation in real life folklore as undead, *including vampires* are something else. They are manifestations like poltergeists, ghosts and Dementors that have no ties to a mortal body. Or they are illusions. Or they are living magical creatures and can eat, breathe and reproduce --like the Thestrals, the Veela and the Ghouls--I can't believe I forgot them. Anne: >>All any person in the Anti Vampire!Snape lobby wants is actual proof pointing directly to Snape--and not just indications--"batlike" attributes, flowing cloak, etc. Like in a court of law, what we're asking for is irrefutable evidence in which to convict Snape with.<< And all it will take to make me give up is irrefutable evidence that Snape is not kin to vampires *as Rowling has defined them.* The second he asks for a second helping of aioli sauce or produces a family tree showing pureblood wizards all the way back to Merlin (wait! wasn't he a devil's son?) I'll give in. So far, no such evidence has been presented. Maybe his grudge against Sirius is so deep that he won't eat with him, (in which case it's odd that he's willing to sit down with Lupin) but that too is just an implication. There's things that *imply* he's a pureblood wizard, such as being in Slytherin and calling Lily a Mudblood (ever hear of the pot and the kettle?), but they don't prove it. > {Pippin} > Point is, there are a lot of things in the Potterverse that can look > like re-animated corpses, and several ways in which wizards > might produce such an illusion, the better to befuddle hapless > Muggles or even superstitious wizarding folk. > > Is there anything we know about vampires *from the canon* > which suggests they are dead, apart from their appearance? > We've been told in several places that Muggle ideas about > fantastic creatures are wildly inaccurate. Could it be that one of > these inaccurate notions is the whole idea of a re-animated corpse? > > {Anne} > Possible, but as with the other observations made about Rowling's use of Myths, not likely. The universally accepted idea of the vampire is a walking, reanimated corpse, who feeds on the blood of the living (Which, if taken literally, even disqualifies the blood flavored lollis in Honeydukes as an indication of Vamp activity--the blood within is anything BUT fresh). << Right. And the universally accepted idea of a Ghoul is a creature who lives in graveyards and feeds on corpse flesh. But in the Potterverse it's a harmless if rather ugly beastie that lives in attics and eats spiders and moths. And what about the wizards and witches themselves? How close are they to their folkloric counterparts? It seems to me that Dumbledore owes a lot more to Gandalf, Obi-wan and T.H. White's Merlin than he does to anything on the folklore shelf. Pippin From pfsch at gmx.de Fri Jan 16 12:50:30 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:50:30 -0000 Subject: Houses and classes In-Reply-To: <40079CE6.18576.2554BD8@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88928 Hi Shaun! "Shaun Hately" wrote: > It depends on the school - houses are a convenient administrative > grouping, so they are sometimes used to assign classes - but > certainly not all schools do that. I had five years in schools run > on British lines and from memory, we went like this. Forgive me asking, but was there also some kind of "sorting" into the houses? Or could you choose which house to go to? Did the teachers decide? Bye Peter (sorted into Ravenclaw on harry-potter.com) From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 17:54:46 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (dk59us) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:54:46 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88929 Sigune wrote: > Does the secrecy that surrounds the magical > community mean that these witches and wizards-to-be and their > families have to lie all the time, just like the Dursleys do? And > does the Muggle-born witch or wizard simply disappear from the > Muggle community without their Muggle family asking questions? Sigune, This is the sort of question that was in the back of my mind when I started the thread. To what extent is the treatment of the Dursleys special due to their relationship to Harry Potter, and to what extent is it the same as the treatment of all other muggles with a magical child or ward? Even with the Dursleys, I can imagine a possible scenario in which Dudley, who we already know is embarrassed to be called "ickle Diddykins" or some such thing by his mother, might "out" the family connection to magic in a fit of adolescent pique. Normally I know he would probably be just as mortified as Vernon and Petunia for this to be revealed, but he has always been given to tantrums and hasn't often shown any ability to work out the long-term implications of his behavior, so I could see him flying into a rage at some point and blurting out that his mother's sister was a witch...or that his cousin magically inflated his dad's sister. Although his parents would be horrified, of course there's little chance that this would be taken seriously by anyone else, so maybe it would of no consequence. I do have to get hold of a copy of "Why Muggles Prefer Not to Know" sometime...can't find it on Amazon. Regards Eustace_Scrubb From hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu Fri Jan 16 20:19:59 2004 From: hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu (phanbu) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:19:59 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88930 > I also don't see any special mission that DD/Ron would have sent Ron > to carry out. "Voldie's army is encamped on the other side of this hill," Harry whispers to Albus, Ron and Fred (or is it George?). "I think that we should wait here until nightfall," he adds. "Not all of us," Dumbledore intercedes. He pulls out a timeturner which has been hidden in his robes for the past several weeks. With a heavy heart, remembering exactly how it happened when he was the young man named Ron Weasley, he continues, "I have a special task in mind for young Mr. Weasley." With his trembling, wrinkled hand, he passes the magical device to Ron and asks him to give it about a bizillion turns. "That should be enough," he says. Ron's brother grabbed him trying to stop him from turning the thing, "He hasn't told you about your mission yet." But it was too late, they had dissapeared into the mists of time. That was okay, though. Albus knew that he didn't need to reveal the mission to them. The Weasley brothers awoke at the side of the rode, in a town that they barely regognized as Hogsmeade. They were surrounded by a crowd of people wearing frillier than usual robes, one calling for a doctor. Ron's head was spinning, but George (or was it Fred?) was the first to catch on. He called out, don't worry about us; were perfectly healthy, just a little banged up." And with a huge grin he announced, "I'm Aberforth, and this is my brother Albus." > I only said that such a scenario can be managed in WDID > without a paradox. This is because *any* scenario can be managed in > WDID, as long as you take care not to change the past. However, such > scenarios might get so weird (while still fully consistent!) they > would be practically unbelievable. I suspect that you still do not > comprehend how weird and cruelly deterministic is the situation of > DD/Ron condition under WDID. Ron knows that Harry was not warned > about the prophecy. That this is why he went to the DoM, and that > Sirius died because of it. So according to your scenario DD/Ron knows > it too. The 18-year-old Albus (a.k.a. Ron) knows very little of what an older Albus will learn. JKR need only explain the few things that Ron learned before he was sent to the past, which is really not that much. (Why couldn't he prevent Tom Riddle's rise to power? Why did he go to London just before the discovery of the CoS? Why didn't he tell Harry what was in the prophecy? etc.) Other things don't need to be explained away, and in fact answer many questions. (How did DD know that Harry found the mirror? How did DD know about the resue of Buckbeak? How did he know about the DA?) > He have known it during the whole Year 5, and during all the > years before that, and he can't warn Harry, he can't warn Sirius, or > prevent it in any other way, and he most probably knows why he can't > (he was the mastermind behind the PoA time travel, after all). He can > tell Harry that he must try these fine chipolatas by the table, but > he can't add "and don't let Voldemort lure you into the DoM because > Sirius will die". We don't know if he said these things or not. He can say these things if he wants to; it will still be impossible to convince Sirius or Harry not to go to the DOM. He can make any decision that he wants, it just turns out that it is the same decision that he made before timeturning (and this is why WDID is so confusing), because it is the same time as it was the first time around, just seen from a different perspective. > I think I would have gone insane in such a > situation. And the whole dramatic speech of DD by the end of the Year > 5, how he did not tell Harry about the prophecy in his first year > because of this, and in the next year because of that, and so on, it > is not only an outright lie but completely besides the point. He did > not tell him because he could not. I still find this scenario > revolting. Personally, I can't believe JKR is tricking us in such a > nasty way. I agree. - Phanbu From tigerfan41 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 20:21:28 2004 From: tigerfan41 at yahoo.com (Darrell Harris) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 4152 In-Reply-To: <1074280285.19581.69423.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040116202128.12908.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88931 Message: 14 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:36:22 -0600 From: "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" Subject: RE: Do the Dead Walk Just my two cents, but didn't Lupin assign a vampire essay upon hearing about Snape's werewolf essay? A coincidence or retaliation? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 20:30:13 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:30:13 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups In-Reply-To: <1074226629.637.99411.w18@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88932 My "other" vote is for the other teachers that haven't had much, or any screen time: Binns, Vector. I think Professors Vector and Sinistra (who was listed, and I checked) are related to the rooms at the Dept of Mysteries, especially the Planet room, and will lend some authority there in the next 2 books. I think Professor Binns will come out of his stupor and, possibly with the aid of Sir Nicholas, will become the conduit to Sirius beyond the veil. Regarding the other poll, I am so pleased to see the handful of people who believe that dear Quirrell has yet a part to play. Would any of you have thought so before I started the Redeemed!Quirrell Fanclub? Stay tuned for my upcoming theory that asserts that Prof Binns is also a critical character. ~ Constance Vigilance, President and Founder of the R!Q Fanclub From imontero at iname.com Fri Jan 16 18:51:59 2004 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:51:59 -0000 Subject: Love and Sacrifice: ultimate weapons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88933 Hi, this is the first time I post something! I apologize for any error, you see, English is not my mother tongue ;-) So, here I go: There is something bugging me since I read GoF. At the end of the book, Dumbledore tells Harry that two sister wands cannot fight against each other. Personally, I believe that the last fight between Harry and Voldemort won't include wands. Probably Harry will have a lot of help from his friends along the way, but the real final battle will be between Voldemort and Harry, since Harry is the only one who has the power to kill Voldemort. Now, how is Harry supposed to achieve this goal without a wand? Dumbledore has made reference many times to a great power that Harry holds in his heart and that is also contained in one of the Department of Mysteries' rooms at the Ministry of Magic. This happens to be the very same power that Voldemort lacks (and I would add, even fears). Dumbledore refers to it as the oldest magic known to wizards, whose powers go beyond magic as wizards know it. At the end, this is the power that Harry will use to vanquish Voldemort, and here wands are useless. There is another hint in GoF. When Harry tells Dumbledore the story of how Voldemort used his blood to come back to life, Dumbledore seems to have a ?glitter of triumph ? on his eyes. Now Voldemort and Harry have another "string" that ties them to each other: they share the same blood, and that is going to be more dangerous for Voldemort than for Harry. Let's not forget that Harry's blood still bears the charm made by Lily. In TOP (OoP), Voldemort tries to possess Harry. At that very moment, Harry decides not to resist this invasion but to wish he died to see his dead Godfather again. When Harry experiences this feeling of love, Voldemort is not able to fight the power of Harry's feelings and has to leave Harry's body. Dying is a sacrifice that Harry is more than willing to do for a very important reason: love. Likewise, Harry's mother used love and sacrifice as the most potent weapon to stop Voldemort from killing baby Harry. All this allusions to love and sacrifice makes me suspect that at the end, there is going to be only one power strong enough to vanquish Voldemort, that will be the very same power that stopped him from killing Harry and from possessing him in the first place: love. Love is the trigger of the ultimate weapon: sacrifice. So far, I think that Harry will kill Voldemort by sacrificing himself for love. I am convinced (and I sincerely hope that I am wrong) that Sacrifice is the weapon that Harry will use to kill Voldemort. By shedding his own blood for love, he is going to start a chain reaction in Voldemort, the same blood that Voldemort used to return to life will burn him to death. What kind of sacrifice Harry will have to do?, What is the role Harry's eyes will play in the end? We will probably have to wait until book seven is published. Will Harry die? I am not sure, if he does live after this, his ultimate sacrifice will probably release him from his ? malediction ? and will change him forever in a very unexpected way "lunamk03" From pfsch at gmx.de Fri Jan 16 18:57:10 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:57:10 -0000 Subject: Marauding Rita Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88934 Hi everybody! An idea that just came up in my mind (forgive if I'm the 100th to ask). Rita being an animaga and MWPP being animagi brought up the question if she taught them those skills perhaps (not as a Hogwarts teacher I mean). Or if they learned those together. She being 43 (1994) and Snape 35-36 (1995/6) leaves a small chance that they met at Hogwarts in their first year and perhaps maintained contact afterwards (her being perhaps employed in Hogsmead). Who's responsible in the MoM for registering animagi anyway? Whoever was in charge to control the observance of the animagus registration rules in those times cannot have done quite a good job: 4 unregistered animagi, maybe more to come, only 7 registered in that century (PoA). Bye Peter From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Fri Jan 16 20:45:22 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:45:22 -0600 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88935 {Darrell} Just my two cents, but didn't Lupin assign a vampire essay upon hearing about Snape's werewolf essay? A coincidence or retaliation? {Anne} I don't know....has anyone actually bothered to ask Lupin? *grins* Yeah, yeah, smart ass comment I know... *Clears throat and gets serious again...^^;** As a stand alone situation, I can see where the assumption is made. Snape assigns the werewolf paper both to 'put down' Lupin and more or less send a subtle threat through the kids to Lupin...in turn, it seems, Lupin returns the favor... Yep yep...on the surface, all clear cut. Lupin is a werewolf, Snape a vamp...the second paper is for retaliation's sake. Then again...(And I will have to likely write a second time once I am home and have the book in hand to prove my point I'm sure)....if Lupin did that to retaliate...then it is out of character for him for the rest of the books... In the pensieve--although he doesn't stop James and Sirius, he frowns, ever so slightly, as they go after Snape. He never says anything bad about Snape....to anyone...although he DOES acknowledge that Snape and James both gave as good as they got when it came to throwing curses at each other (note that he includes both parties, not just one over the other) He defends Snape to Harry several times... In short...he seems more to support the guy more then to undermine him. Where, then, is the just cause in Lupin's nature, to retaliate by exposing Snape as a vampire to the kids (who would then go to their parents with the information...who would then turn around and demand Snape's head, much as they did with Remus himself at the end of the book....). Although that tactic works well within the definitions of Snape's character...it does not gel so well with Lupin's calm, live and let live, everyone has their own way, outlook on life. Just an opinion...^^ Still doesn't really make Snape a vamp--guilt by association is not proof...*winks* Anne From frost_indri at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 20:05:11 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:05:11 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll: Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88936 Frost: I checked other because I think that at least two non-human (or at least once human) minor characters will be of great importance. One I am "as-certain-of-as-I-can-be" before the books are written, and that is Phineas Nigel. The painting. JKR has already set up a sort of relationship with Harry, or at least the beginnings of one, and we see that the death of Sirus has an impact upon him, which is important enough to comment on. Though, it might depend on what happens to the black house now that Sirius is dead. Does it go to the Malfoy's (closest living relative), or did Sirius, while he was so extremely bored out of his mind he decided to write his will for fun, and make sure Harry was in it. The second "other" is the Bloody Baron. JKR has made such a mystery around him, and the power he holds over the other ghosts, and a poltergeist, that I find it hard to believe that he's not going to be important in the end. Heck, he's old enough to have influenced Tom Riddle, so... yeah. Frost From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 16 20:05:00 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:05:00 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Matching Armchair Rethink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88937 Amy wrote: > Big Snip> > So what if we were only slightly off the mark when it came to our > memory charm theories of the past? What if JKR does not have a > MATCHING ARMCHAIR hidden in the back story of Neville? What if in > the future she starts to play ARMCHAIR OLYMPICS? Yes! What if in > book six or seven Neville gets: A Reverse Memory Charm/Hex And In > Response Our Longbottoms Youths Memory Previously Inaccessible > Comes-back Suddenly? > > another snip > However, what finally might push him into regaining his memory, is > the fact that he wants to know what happened that night, exactly, > and to see if he can remember anything of his parents before the > attack. > > For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit > Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 I have not spent a great deal of time in Theory Bay but I do love this one. Personally I think Neville could use Dumbledore's pensieve in a BIG way....what if he was able to pull the memories out for all to see, perhaps in potions? The only greater justice I can imagine is for the thing that finally breaks through into Neville's memories is the LAST time his grandmother says "he hasn't got his father's talent" (OotP pg. 512 American Edition). Neville has a story and JKR is keeping it hidden for some reason, probably because it's a barn burner. It would make it even better if it was connected to Snape's story! Sue From rhyannon at house-endymion.net Fri Jan 16 20:29:40 2004 From: rhyannon at house-endymion.net (Rhyannon) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:29:40 -0800 Subject: Subject: Re: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? References: <1074268675.21192.67603.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004101c3dc70$65fccca0$ad01a8c0@Hedwig> No: HPFGUIDX 88938 ---snipping for space... Tanya: > Yes, that scenario would match well with what Neville said about > the responses from his family after he was dropped and bounced. > That attitude might have been a bit more widespread also. I mean > if the DE's were trying to breed their numbers up and one, had gasp, > horror, a squib baby. Pureblood pride and all that. Berit: >>The Longbottoms were members of the Order. How likely is it that they harboured thoughts about the purity of blood and were inclined to kill off their squib son so he couldn't defile their good name? Of course, even if Neville's parents were in the Order, their relatives like uncle Algie might still have the mind of a DE. But I can't see Alice and Frank letting uncle Algie throw their son out of a window if the intention was to harm him in any way. By the way; I don't have the book here with me, but doesn't the text say that uncle Algie didn't mean to throw Neville out of the window, just hang him out of it to "encourage" him to fight back with magic, but then he lost his grip and Neville fell? >>>> Rhyannon here.... Unfortunately, I don't have the books here with me so I can't exactly quote the passage involved, but I seem to remember that Uncle Algie was dangling Neville out of a window (which as a mother I find HORRIBLE) and was offered some sort of pastry, at which point he turned, and accepted the pastry, dropping Neville out the window. So while he was totally careless, it doesn't appear to be specifically intentional on his part. That said, I have a tough time reading the passages about Neville's relationship with his Grandmother and the rest of his family. He makes it clear that they were very worried about the possibility of him being a squib and that that would have been very shameful for the family if it had been true. I empathize with his Mrs. Longbottom's grief over her son's incapacity, especially as it is clear that Frank Longbottom was a very talented wizard. However, it bothers me that she doesn't seem to value Neville for who he is, but rather seems to want to hold his father up goal for him, expressing disappointment when he is not able to attain this clearly unreachable goal. Just recently, I was listening to OoP on audiobook, and felt my heart sink at hearing Neville relate a dream of "a pair of scissors chasing me wearing my Grandmother's hat." In my mind, that would symbolize his Grandmother constantly "cutting" him down and him feeling as if he can't live up to his father's image. I was also frustrated at learning that after all these years Neville has been using his father's wand. While the Weasley family has a financial reason for not being able to provide a brand new wand for each child, it seems that the Longbottom family, who know that a wizard will never get as good as results from another wizard's wand, could easily have provided Neville with his own wand. Instead, he was given his father's old wand, I believe in an another attempt to have him live up to his father's image, something that clearly he cannot do. (I don't believe that Neville isn't as good as his father, only that Gran Longbottom has created a sainted and perfected image of her son that NO ONE could ever live up to.) I will admit to being prejudiced on Neville's behalf, he gets my protective mothering instincts going, and I find myself wanting to battle both his Snape and his grandmother on his behalf... Rhyannon From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 21:01:19 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:01:19 -0000 Subject: CH9 discussion questions -- the twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88939 <<> The Sergeant Majorette says: Exactly so, except that I believe Molly *can* tell them apart. They were messing with her. She probably always blows them off when they do this. If it came to it making an actual difference which one is which, Molly would deal accordingly; but it will likely be something serious. (on a lighter note, in those "Which Twin is Gay?" polls that are so much fun, the same characteristics are cited, but the conclusions go either way: e.g., It's George because he's quieter/ It's Fred because he's louder...) There's another thing: in OoP, it's *George* who says that he thinks they're "well shut of" Percy. Given that George seems to be the more mature of the two, doesn't this seem like a hint that Percy really *is* really Evil? --JDR From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 16 21:11:10 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:11:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88940 David in message 88892 identifies the essential problem with the hats: House Elves are not freed merely by contact with their masters' clothes (or else why didn't Dobby free himself when he was at the Malfoys?) or by intent (since Lucius did not intend to free Dobby when he inadvertently threw him a sock). So how can Hermione's hats work? Second, why hasn't Hermione noticed the problem? Why hasn't she thought this thing to death the way she does everything else? Is JKR using this for something in Book 6? Bobby From rhyannon at house-endymion.net Fri Jan 16 20:49:13 2004 From: rhyannon at house-endymion.net (Rhyannon) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:49:13 -0800 Subject: "I must not tell lies..." / Metamorphmagus References: <1074280285.19581.69423.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000b01c3dc72$33eb7fc0$ad01a8c0@Hedwig> No: HPFGUIDX 88941 Arya: Just a question, but do we have canon to support the assumption the quill left scars that are still visible? We know Harry had to nurse the wounds and such and even eased the pain with the Murlap but are we just assuming there is now an indelible etching of "I must tell lies" in the form of a scar or do we know this from the book? I just can't recall and everyone seems to always assume or know he does. The reason I wonder about this detail is because I've been trying to think about clues as to whether Harry might be a metamorphamagus or not. It's obvious from Tonks the skill allows her to change facial features and hair. She also comments to Harry that if he had the skill he might be able to cover up his scar. Now, aside from wondering whether his curse scar is an ordinary enough scar to be treated like this, I went back and thought of the other scars Harry should have and whether he still has them. If he were a m-magus, then he might be able to heal/cover the scars from the quill by simply loathing them and wishing them away. My two cents... For what's it's worth, I remember in the first book one of Harry's inadvertant uses of magic was after Petunia cut his hair in some ridiculous manner (I believe she hacked it all off and left just his fringe at the front to "cover that horrible scar") and then during the middle of the night he made it grow back. However, I don't know if that qualifies as a M-morghmagi....it doesn't appear to have been conscious on his part, and it wasn't really a changing of his appearance in a dramatic way, just a "reclaiming" of his previous appearance. Rhyannon From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 16 21:16:32 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:16:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the D.A. List Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88942 While I'm thinking about Hermione, here's another instance of "Little Miss Perfect," as that cow Rita Skeeter called her, screwing up in OOTP. It concerns the D.A. list. First, the jinx. If Hermione had simply told the students about the jinx, no one would have told Umbridge. Think about it. If she was relying on the students' honesty all along, why bother putting a jinx on the list in the first place? And if she doesn't tell them, why did bother putting the jinx on it at all? The jinx wouldn't work to keep the secret unless they know it's there. It's like the Doomsday Device the Russians had in the movie "Doctor Strangelove": it is only a deterrent if they bother to tell the Americans. Was Hermione's object to keep the list secret or was she just being mean? Of course, the students would be mad at her at first when she finally told them about the jinx ("Oh, by the way, I put this little jinx on the list . . .), but they would get over that and realize that they were safe of being exposed. Isn't that what is important? So . . . was the purpose of the jinx to protect the students and the list, or was it just a nasty little trick to catch someone? Second, Umbridge getting the D.A. list. Hermione apparently "left [the list] behind" "pinned" to the wall of the Room of Requirement, to quote the book. Why in the world was she carrying the list to the D.A. meetings at all, let alone putting on the wall? Why bother taking attendance or anything else connected to the list? Why didn't she leave it somewhere hidden in her dorm room? If you reply that it wasn't her copy of the list but one that the Room of Requirement provided Umbridge (since the room provides whatever is needed and Umbridge needed that), there is still a problem. Wouldn't JKR have Hermione the next day say something like "It's not my list! Mine is still in my room!" or "The list vanished from my room!"? The way the scene is written she apparently pinned her copy to the wall, and DD ended up fired. Bobby From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 18:28:54 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:28:54 -0000 Subject: Snape tried in court? And Rabastan Lestrange In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88943 Sigune: > > Does this mean Snape has been under arrest at one point and > > brought into court, or has he just been mentioned and cleared > > during another trial? Meri: > I would assume that since Snape's role was that of a double agent > that he could not have been tried by a full court, as there would > have been too much of a chance that someone could have blown his > cover to LV. I don't think that Snape had ever been under > arrest, I always thought it would be similar to the hearing Ludo Bagman attended. People asking questions, etc. At that time, Dumbledore, much in the same way he did at Harry's trial in OOP- came forward with evidence of Snape's activities. "lizvega2" From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 16 21:24:22 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:24:22 -0000 Subject: Question about Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88944 christy in message 8860 asks about how Remus could possibly have been sorted into Slytherin. I mentioned earlier that I have not paid much attention to Remus and so don't have a good answer, but there were some posts about the possibility that Remus rather than Bellatrix was responsible for Sirius going through the veil. christy mentions that she rejects that theory. I can't find those posts about Remus and the veil with the Search function. Can anyone help? If you know the message numbers for that thread, please post them. From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 16 21:45:03 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:45:03 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > Hi Sylvia! > > Sylvia wrote: > > Re-reading the chapter where Harry buys his wand, I started to > > wonder what would happen if a wizard lost his wand. > > The wands chooses its owner. I suppose it searces her/him as well. > Highly speculative I have to admit. snip Like some magical > kind of magnatism. > > Bye Peter (who wishes his lost things could to the same) This wand "problem" has always bothered me as well. What happened to Peter's wand? I suppose he could have carried it into the sewer with his teeth, hidden it and then returned to get it later. But where did he keep it for 12 years? The same question applys to Voldemort, Serius, and all of the DE's who escaped from Azakaban and seemed to have rediscovered their wands upon escape. It is rather untidy. Sue (who wishes the same, especially my keys) From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 16 21:56:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:56:12 -0000 Subject: I must not tell lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arya" wrote: > annemehr wrote: > how important is it that Harry now carries a scar on his right > hand: "I must not tell lies?" > Personally, I think this must have importance beyond the battle of > wills between Harry and Umbridge. Arya: > Just a question, but do we have canon to support the assumption the > quill left scars that are still visible? We know Harry had to nurse > the wounds and such and even eased the pain with the Murlap but are > we just assuming there is now an indelible etching of "I must tell > lies" in the form of a scar or do we know this from the book? I just > can't recall and everyone seems to always assume or know he does. > Geoff: Although it doesn't indicate it's permanent scarring, this may be the clue because it's some time after the event... "He closed the book and as he did so the firelight illuminated the thin white scars on the back of his hand - the result of his detentions with Umbridge... 'Wait a moment - there is something you can do for me, Dobby' said Harry slowly. The elf looked round, beaming. 'Name it, Harry Potter, sir!' 'I need to find a place where twenty-eight people can practise Defence Against the Dark Arts without being discovered by any of the teachers. Especially,' Harry clenched his hand on the book, so that the scars shone pearly white, 'Professor Umbridge.'" (OOTP "Dumbledore's Army" p.342 UK edition) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 16 22:01:46 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:01:46 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy? Was:CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4008F9FA.16824.31FBB1@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88947 On 16 Jan 2004 at 16:07, Arya wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" > wrote: > I also agree. But is it a possibility that Head Boy/Girl is an honor > that is voted on my the class? I was just thinking about it and if > it were also a popular vote thing, then that might explain why James, > a non-prefect in at least his fifth year and a knowingly popular > person got to be Head Boy. I'm not so sure if PErcy was well liked > enough all around to get voted into the position but he was nice > enough at the time to have a girlfriend, so who knows. Is it > possible though that it could be put to a vote, though? Yes, it is possible - in some schools these positions are elected positions. That's probably a minority of schools - but it's a large enough minority to make this possible. >From what I have heard in schools where the positions are elected, the students are generally mature enough to make sensible decisions - they don't just vote for their friends, they do consider other factors - so they might vote for someone like Percy if they think he'd do a really good job, even if he wasn't their best friend - it'd be hard to get elected if everybody hated you - but you don't necessarily need to be the most popular person around. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 22:28:16 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:28:16 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous (part 2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88948 > Neri wrote: > As my test case I use the Ron=DD theory, which is discussed as part > of the knight2king theory (read all about it in > http://www.knight2king.net , hoping I got the link right this time). > JKR can save herself from paradox by devising just two histories. > This may be termed the Double Loop Ploy (DLP): Ron travels 130 years > into the past, and becomes DD. He does everything he can to prevent > LV rise to power, and succeeds, but this causes an unexpected, tragic > turn of events. Say, in this history DD fails to defeat Grindelwald, > so there is a war all over again, only a different war with another > Bad Guy. Somehow, a Ron is born in this history too, and this Ron is > also, somehow, transported to the past. Note that this is a different > Ron (call him Ron-2). He must be different because he has a different > history, H-2. In fact, it might not even be Ron this time around. > > vmonte wrote: > Yes, I sort of understand your idea that there could be more than one > timeline going on (I don't even want to begin thinking about this > idea). I don't know if time travel, Ron=DD, is the right answer to > why DD seems to know more than he should, but I do think that it is > possible, and there are many clues pointing in that direction. > Of course, he could just be a (real) Seer who is subtly trying to > manipultate history. Neri responds: The problem is how to get a scenario in which DD knows many things, but still does not know how everything ends up. In the last case, either he can act upon his knowledge and change the past, which creates a paradox unless you take the special measures I suggested, or he does nothing, which (I fully agree) is against the theme of decisions and free will. It would indeed be much easier to make DD a seer, because a seer (presumably) does not always know everything that's going to happen. > > One thing I don't believe is that the time-line is > fixed /unchangeable. It is very obvious that DD (at different times) > manipulates the characters in the books (yes, like chess pieces). > (Many fans have pointed to the fact that DD is almost playing puppet > master with the children.) > > I can reconcile DD's manipulation of the time-line, if his > transportation back into time was/is accidental. (I cannot blame > someone for trying to change history if they are trying to save > lives, blah blah etc.) > > I do think that if time-travel is involved at all it will ultimately > show that people must take responsibility for their actions. Time- > travel is an easy fix! (I completely understand why fans of the books > would feel cheated if in the end no one really had free choice/free > will.) > > I believe DD will come to realize that time-line meddling never > really changes history, not because it is the law of the time-line > continuum, but because people have free will, and no matter how much > you try to protect loved ones they are the ones who should be in > charge of their own destiny, blah blah etc. > > Meddling may only delay what will eventually happen anyway. Neri responds: Imagine that by the end of Book 7 it turns out that DD is Ron, and Harry asks him: "why didn't you tell me that if I'll go to the DoM Sirius will die?". What would DD answer? "Because I believed you would have gone anyway"? I wouldn't have accepted such an answer if I was Harry, and I won't accept it as a reader. > > I think DD was trying to save Sirius (change history) when he had > Hermione and Harry time-travel with Buckbeak, and when he forced > Sirius to remaine at OOTP headquarters--in the end DD only ended up > delaying Sirius's death. Neri responds: A nice theory, but again, this means that DD comes from an alternative history H-2, (in which Sirius was executed by the end of Year 3), and this opens the whole nest of pixies I tried to contain in the original post. > > Finally, no one really knows how the books are going to end (except > JKR), but I think that if DD=Ron via time-travel, or DD is a Seer, > Rowling will ultimately remark that people need to be accountable for > their actions. Time-travel is like the Mirror of Erised. You can > either live in fantasy, never accepting what life has given you, or > you can make the best of it that you can. Neri responds: I fully agree with you about the accountability theme. As I explained in the original post, however, if JKR wants to stay consistent and not contradict herself, then time travel is going to be *much* more complicated than the Mirror of Erised. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 22:45:23 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:45:23 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88949 Neri wrote: > > I also don't see any special mission that DD/Ron would have sent Ron > > to carry out. > Phanbu wrote: > "Voldie's army is encamped on the other side of this hill," Harry > whispers to Albus, Ron and Fred (or is it George?). "I think that > we should wait here until nightfall," he adds. > > "Not all of us," Dumbledore intercedes. He pulls out a timeturner > which has been hidden in his robes for the past several weeks. With > a heavy heart, remembering exactly how it happened when he was the > young man named Ron Weasley, he continues, "I have a special task > in mind for young Mr. Weasley." With his trembling, wrinkled hand, > he passes the magical device to Ron and asks him to give it about a > bizillion turns. "That should be enough," he says. > > Ron's brother grabbed him trying to stop him from turning the thing, > "He hasn't told you about your mission yet." But it was too late, > they had dissapeared into the mists of time. That was okay, though. > Albus knew that he didn't need to reveal the mission to them. > > The Weasley brothers awoke at the side of the rode, in a town that > they barely regognized as Hogsmeade. They were surrounded by a > crowd of people wearing frillier than usual robes, one calling for > a doctor. Ron's head was spinning, but George (or was it Fred?) > was the first to catch on. He called out, don't worry about us; > were perfectly healthy, just a little banged up." And with a huge > grin he announced, "I'm Aberforth, and this is my brother Albus." > Neri again: So what was the special mission??? And I think it would be really cruel to separate Fred and George for 130 years. Couldn't you send Charlie instead? Neri From jane_starr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 22:58:19 2004 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:58:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Subject: Re: At what time is a witch/wizard categorized as one? In-Reply-To: <004101c3dc70$65fccca0$ad01a8c0@Hedwig> Message-ID: <20040116225819.41748.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88950 --- Rhyannon wrote: > Rhyannon here.... > I was also frustrated at learning that after all > these > years Neville has been using his father's wand. > While the Weasley family > has a financial reason for not being able to provide > a brand new wand for > each child, it seems that the Longbottom family, who > know that a wizard will > never get as good as results from another wizard's > wand, could easily have > provided Neville with his own wand. JES: Well, your theory may be right, but mine is that Neville's family is not actually be all that well off. Look at his grandmother, wearing the same mouldy fur tippet and grotty vulture hat for the last dunnomany years. I expect she comes from a background of genteel poverty, where you are use things until they disintigrate, and to buy a new wand when there is a perfectly good unused one sitting around is a wanton waste of good money. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she gives him his mum's old wand next. JES __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Fri Jan 16 23:30:57 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:30:57 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > > Peter: > > I wondered, why Harry never asked to see his parents' grave. > > AmanitaMuscaria : I always assumed it was his upbringing - he > > doesn't ask questions about his parents either, but then, he was > > told from an early age not to ask questions and punished for doing > > so. > > Peter: Seems to be a very good explanation for him not asking to me. I > still wonder though whether he's ever told where it is and/or gets > there. If he does it might be of importance - maybe that's where the > dramatical show down will take place. Although there already was a > important scene on a graveyard which would make "mine" just a repeated > one. AmanitaMuscaria again: Yes - JKR may go either way - either work back through the occurrences, or go into new ones. So either Harry finds out straightway where his parents' bodies lie (do they? What was left if the house was demolished?) or it's held off. Either way, it's a potent image, and could be worked on. Except that Harry's always put thinking about his parents behind him. JKR has always had him veer away from any real examination of what all his history meant to him. > > > Now, that is an interesting question. Along with whether goblins own > > Gringotts or are just employed there, and who won the goblin wars? > > Peter: What wizards call "goblin war" might have been a rebellion > "just" to gain full rights - which they might have won, now having > those rights. Or goblins lost but wizardkind so many losses that they > had to admit certain rights. Such as the right to have property and > run a business. AmanitaMuscaria again: Absolutely. It really depends on what each side were fighting for - the goblins are portrayed by JKR as being interested only in gold and treasure, so why would they become involved with politics, if they think it's immaterial? Mind you, we haven't heard Prof.Binns' take, as everyone apart from Hermione has fallen asleep. He might have explained it ... > > > Peter: If there are house elves - are there any non domesticated > > elves, too? > > AmanitaMuscaria : Why wouldn't there be renegrade groups of elves > > somewhere? Perhaps Harry needs to ask Dobby? > > Peter: I shall remind him of that the next time I meet him. :) Indeed > I assume that there are groups of elves given clothes - they can't all > end up in Hogwarts (though it would explain the large number of elves > in there). AmanitaMuscaria again: No, as they're all 'disgusted' by Dobby's attitude. So most of the houseelves at Hogwarts are 'traditional', Hagrid mentions that there will always be the odd one ... so does that mean the binding spell (or whatever it is) just wasn't effective on Dobby? He's very interesting because even before he was freed, he was able (I'm assuming he did it off his own bat) to warn Harry. This may mean that houseelves, if they're given enough stimulus, can shake off whatever it is that makes them subservient (witness Kreacher). > It is said (I think it was in OoP, in a conversation about Kreacher) > that house elves are under a charm making them willing serveants - > correct me if I'm wrong. So I suppose that there are elves not being > charmed in that way. snip > And, in CS a Weasley (Ron?) states that they are only found in > rich wizarding families, but even the Malfoys only had had Dobby. AmanitaMuscaria again: Why do you assume Malfoy only had Dobby? All Malfoy actually says is, 'You've lost me my servant, boy'. He never says, you've lost me my only servant. I can't see the Malfoys relying on only one, rather dubious, houseelf? Do you believe Dobby could have just suddenly become rebellious? I would assume he's always been a bit of an oddity. > Since there can't be to many rich families (and Hogwarts as we know > later, perhaps in the MoM and St. Mungus as well) AmanitaMuscaria again : Good point. Look in the places which have most need of helping hands. Mungos, though, and a very pertinent place to look. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Fri Jan 16 23:37:35 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:37:35 -0000 Subject: Time travel : what does Ron know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88952 Olivier : Wow, an impressive series of great arguments back and forth ! I will try to give what seems to me to be a plausible version of Knight2King. So, let us review the hypothesis. Around the end of book seven, Ron travels willingly or not 130 years back in the past. He discovers he has to impersonate Dumbledore. Now the key point here in my opinion is that if Ron had to do that, it was probably quite unexcpected. He has not prepared a slightest bit. All he knows about time- travel is that it is very dangerous to change the past. So he acts as best as he can to mimick Dumbledore's life. He knows from the present that he must work with Flamel, that he must defeat Gindelwald and so on. But there are also a lot of things he does not know. And that is the solution to many problems of Ron!DD. Ron does not know what the prophecy says (before he hears it from Trelawney) nor when Harry learned about it. Therefore, his speech at the end of OoP is not a lie, Ron! DD does not know when he has to tell Harry about the prophecy and that is a terrible dilemma for him. Now another problem, pointed by Neri > Neri responds: > Imagine that by the end of Book 7 it turns out that DD is Ron, and > Harry asks him: "why didn't you tell me that if I'll go to the DoM > Sirius will die?". What would DD answer? "Because I believed you > would have gone anyway"? I wouldn't have accepted such an answer if I > was Harry, and I won't accept it as a reader. I think Ron!DD might have tried everything he could to save Sirius. But we have to remember that Ron!DD is not omniscient, all he recalls from his past, is that in his fifth year LV tried to lure Harry inside the DoM and that he had to prevent that. Well Canon!DD does exactly that : he tries as hard as he can to prevent Harry to fall under the influence of LV, and when he realizes Harry has gone, he goes there as quick as he can and almost manages to save Sirius. Why did he not say plain and simple "whatever happens Harry, do not go to the DoM !" I think he even did better than that, after all, he cannot be sure Harry will be tempted exactly by the same trap in this time-line (here I suppose that at least in Ron's mind, it is possible to change the past). So he insisted again and again on the importance of Occlumency. The only problem is that Harry lied. In OoP, Ron believes that Harry has kept on working Occlumency, hence so does Ron!DD, and despite all his efforts, he failed. And this is why he is so sad at the end of OoP, Ron has failed significantly for the first time since he has started being DD. Now why is DD optimistic despite him being forced to relive everything without being able to change anything ? In my opinion, Ron does not relive at all, Ron discovers, and has a great time while at it. Besides, it could be that when Ron set out for the past, the good side was taking a definite edge in the war, so he knows it is going to be hard, but he also has high hopes. Why didn't he stop Tom Riddle opening the Chamber ? I guess the answer to that is the sheer cleverness of Tom and Ron's ethic. He cannot act against Tom without a proof that he is going to turn to the dark side. And Tom is brilliant enough to attack Myrtle before Ron spots him. But once Tom has revealed himself, Ron knows that his great task is going to start, so he starts his watch (see Tom's account of that in CoS). Only Tom outsmarts him again ("probably the most brilliant student" in the own words of DD) and disappear, beginning his transformation into LV. So in conclusion, I don't think there is a real implausibility to Knight2King. Let us see if that is the way JKR chose. Regards, Olivier From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 16 23:36:44 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:36:44 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houses and classes In-Reply-To: References: <40079CE6.18576.2554BD8@localhost> Message-ID: <4009103C.12061.88F2BB@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 88953 On 16 Jan 2004 at 12:50, Peter Felix Schuster wrote: > Hi Shaun! > > "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > It depends on the school - houses are a convenient administrative > > grouping, so they are sometimes used to assign classes - but > > certainly not all schools do that. I had five years in schools run > > on British lines and from memory, we went like this. > > Forgive me asking, but was there also some kind of "sorting" into the > houses? Or could you choose which house to go to? Did the teachers > decide? There was kind of a sorting - though we weren't told much about it, I found most of this out later. Basically at our senior school, 90% of us coming in had attended one of the school's two prep schools - so in most cases, the staff at the senior school could easily find out about us. When deciding who went into what house, they'd talk to our teachers at the junior schools, and make decisions based on what they were told. The biggest defining characteristic was the Housemaster - some boys were placed into particular Houses simply because it was believed that that Housemaster was the best to deal with them (apparently this happened to me - my Housemaster was the school's pastoral officer as well, and they decided I needed clear access to pastoral care). They'd also make decisions to separate boys who caused trouble together and ensure they were in different houses, or to make sure a boy who had a hard time making friends wasn't separated from all those that he had - that type of thing. Most boys didn't really need this type of handling - so they went into a pool and were basically spread out almost randomly to ensure we had equal numbers. Over the years they've tried a lot of different methods to try and make the process more organised for the vast bulk of students - personality testing, and the like. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 23:40:29 2004 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:40:29 -0000 Subject: I must not tell lies (Correction of prev. post) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88954 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "augustinapeach" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arya" wrote: > Just a question, but do we have canon to support the assumption the > quill left scars that are still visible? We know Harry had to nurse > the wounds and such and even eased the pain with the Murlap but are > we just assuming there is now an indelible etching of "I must tell > lies" in the form of a scar or do we know this from the book? I just > can't recall and everyone seems to always assume or know he does. > > Now AP: > > I read this part just last night, but don't have the book with me to > cite page numbers. When Harry is talking to Dobby in the common room > late at night, he notices the scar on his hand as he closes his book, > and the text says something like, "which he thought would probably > never fade completely" (poor paraphrase, but I believe the idea is > right!). Seeing the scar is what makes him think to ask Dobby if > there is a place for the DA to meet. > More AP: Right idea, wrong place in the story. "Harry's detentions with Umbridge were finally over (he doubted whether the words now etched on the back of his hand would ever fade entirely). . . ." (OoP, p. 330) (going back into lurkdom) From happybean98 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 21:51:27 2004 From: happybean98 at yahoo.com (happybean98) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:51:27 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88955 Bobby, You wrote: > David in message 88892 identifies the essential problem with the > hats: House Elves are not freed merely by contact with their > masters' clothes (or else why didn't Dobby free himself when he was > at the Malfoys?) or by intent (since Lucius did not intend to free > Dobby when he inadvertently threw him a sock). So how can > Hermione's hats work? I wondered the same thing. It's a pointless, almost pathetic attempt. In my opinion, the only functions the hats serve are, 1. Generate pathos for Hermione's character by witnessing her hopeless effort to do something to change the plight of the house elves. This is especially true when Harry discovers the uselessness of the hats from Dobby and the fact that they are not making life better for the House Elves, but worse. Also, his reluctance to tell Hermione the truth for fear it would dissapoint her. 2. Continue to slowly build the theme that the House Elves are important to the outcome of the fight against Voldemort. Hermione has made a series of unsuccessful efforts to point this out..from trying to start S.P.E.W. to making the hats, to defending Kreacher in Oop. Oop is the first time another character, (Dumbledore), points out that she is right about the house elves. I think the point of the hats is not so much a plot device as character development. The hats are showing that Hermione is developing a social conscience, which makes her unpopular and pathetic to the other characters. I am sure the House Elves will be freed by the end of the books due to her efforts, but she will have to change tactic. > Second, why hasn't Hermione noticed the problem? Why hasn't she > thought this thing to death the way she does everything else? Is > JKR using this for something in Book 6? I agree. Dumbledore's Army was her idea, and was successful. Also the article about Harry by Rita Skeeter was her idea, and was successful. Why can't her success carry over to the House Elves? Of course, the two efforts that were successful used Harry's fame as a catalyst. It will be interesting to see what she tries next. Kathleen From frost_indri at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 22:09:33 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:09:33 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88956 > wrote: > > I wonder just what are the qualifications of being an auror? I mean we know from OotP that one has to exceed academically as well as have no criminal record; but I wonder after all Harry has done for Hogwarts > > sachmet96 > That no criminal record could be a problem for Harry. He tried to use an unforgivable and even if it's not on record he might get asked if he has ever used such curses, <> So I can't see him as an auror and I don't think there should be exceptions just because he is famous. >> Frost: I agree that would be problematic for Harry, but not crippling. He only tried, and couldn't beyond a half a second. Maybe because it was above him, and maybe because he just didn't have that sort of cruelty in him. It could be looked over in light of more recent evidence. Maybe. It sounds like becoming an auror is similar to working for the FBI (or British equivalent, sorry, I am ignorant and do not know what it is.) I've known a couple of people who were trying to get to work there, and in other branches of the gov't and they were checked out so thoroughly... there couldn't help but be marks against them. But that didn't leave them sitting dead in the water. Also, the exception wouldn't be made because Harry is famous, it would be because of exceptional service to the MoM and Wizarding Kind everywhere. When it's just because of fame, it's because they have a name everyone knows, they're rich, and the community is putting pressure on them. Harry might, by the end of the story, have earned forgiveness for the brash, angry decision he made while 15. Or at least have been deemed punished enough. Sachmet96 >> He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above average. >> He doesn't have to, if he can be exceptional by trying. Just being naturally talented doesn't make you somehow better. It just means that you have a slight edge. You still have to be able to work hard, concentrate, learn, and grow or you're going to stagnate in your natural talent. Anyone else who works harder will become better than you. Harry has shown the willingness to work hard, and push himself. IE, how and why he learned to do the Patronus Charm. He learned it while fainting from fear and hearing the voices of his dying parents and their murderer in his head. They learned it in a comfortable room, without even the benefit of a Bogart-dementor. I doubt any of them, with the exception of Hermione, would be able to produce a real patronus when faced with a real dementor. The only reason I think Hermione could is because she's faced them before, and has a better idea of what she would need to fight. Harry has, and every time, it's been a struggle, but he did it. Which also show that he is willing to face his fears. He's demonstrated the needed ability to think on his feet, to react well to a situation, and, to some extent, figure out clues and put things together. He has leadership skills, and can work well on a team. He has the potential. The only question is... Sachmet96 >> And I personally can't see him as an auror; after all they have to follow rules and orders and Harry is exceptionally bad at this :-) Yup. That would be crippling to his ability to be an Auror. He's never learned much trust or respect of authority, and where he has (DD), he's never been one to figure out when to do it. How many times have I sat there, reading, and screaming "go tell Dumbledore, you idiot!" (or "at least try talking to Sirius!" (I really get into the books. ^_^''')) And he didn't understand that he needed to stay still and not to magic after the Dementor attack so that others could save his wand & Butt. He figured since that he couldn't do anything, no one else could. Granted, they were idiots to not tell him anything of what was going on, but... still. It was a show of a lack of maturity on his part. I think he could overcome this still in the next two books, but we won't know till it happens, no? Frost From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 16 22:25:08 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:25:08 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the D.A. List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88957 Bobby wrote: >> If you reply that it wasn't her copy of the list but one that the Room of Requirement provided Umbridge (since the room provides whatever is needed and Umbridge needed that), there is still a problem. Wouldn't JKR have Hermione the next day say something like "It's not my list! Mine is still in my room!" or "The list vanished from my room!"? The way the scene is written she apparently pinned her copy to the wall, and DD ended up fired.>> At the first DA meeting "She pinned the piece of paper with all of their names on it on the wall and wrote DUMBLEDORE'S ARMY across the top in large letters." OotP pg. 392 American Edition. Hermione pinned it on the wall and never took it down. They left the room the way it was when they were done. Sue (who has faith that at least 90% of the students knew Umbridge was evil from the first day, dispite how "lovely" Percy thought she was.) From nakedkali at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 22:58:07 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:58:07 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice Potion question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88958 Owlery said: > > Not exactly a follow-up to the thoughts in the prior posts, but a > polyjuice question, just the same. I thought the potion was thick and > glutinous, and that HRH drank a glass-full each to effect their > transformations in COS. Barty Jr. has a flask-full from which he > takes frequent swigs. It would seem a difficult potion to transfer to > a flask, much less "swig" from . . . I guess it's possible, but it > seemed odd. ________ Sea Change responds: There doesn't seem to be a canon answer, so I will speculate. It's possible that the potion is not supposed to be epecially thick or glutinous, only it turned out that way when a Second year student made it. It's possible that the addition of distilled water, or even hard alcohol for verisimilitude, to the solution doesn't affect it magically. It's possible that the flask has flexible sides (say if the metal were thin, or if it were mylarized plastic) and so the potion could be squeezed out. Sea Change, Who squeezes fluids out from his canteen during hikes. From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 17 00:00:37 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:00:37 -0000 Subject: Love and Sacrifice: ultimate weapons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88959 "lunamk03" wrote: > All this allusions to love and sacrifice makes me suspect that at the > end, there is going to be only one power strong enough to vanquish > Voldemort, that will be the very same power that stopped him from > killing Harry and from possessing him in the first place: love. Love > is the trigger of the ultimate weapon: sacrifice. > > So far, I think that Harry will kill Voldemort by sacrificing himself > for love. I am convinced (and I sincerely hope that I am wrong) that > Sacrifice is the weapon that Harry will use to kill Voldemort. By > shedding his own blood for love, he is going to start a chain > reaction in Voldemort, the same blood that Voldemort used to return > to life will burn him to death. What kind of sacrifice Harry will > have to do?, What is the role Harry's eyes will play in the end? > We will probably have to wait until book seven is published. Will > Harry die? I am not sure, if he does live after this, his ultimate > sacrifice will probably release him from his ? malediction ? Berit replies: I've been thinking along the same lines as you. And who knows; maybe Harry will vanquish the Dark Lord by being willing to sacrifice himself to save someone dear to him, a blood relative - Mark Evans... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From nakedkali at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 23:19:51 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:19:51 -0000 Subject: Stereotypical Sexism In-Reply-To: <20040111205310.63654.qmail@web60903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88960 Lynn said: [snip by Sea Change] it has seemed to me that the WW > would always be far behind Muggle traditions, > primarily because lifespans are so much longer. [major snippage as Lynn goes into sociological theory] ----------- Sea Change replies: Other folks have used this in relation to the thread on why or why not Christianity should affect the WW, and my reasoning is the same. One of the reasons that American culture rockets along is the mass influx of immigrants we get. WW culture gets a similar influx from wizards born to muggles. It doesn't even matter if it doesn't happen too often per capita, because several muggle generations happen within one wizard one, and there are so *many* more muggles than wizards. One could suppose that this is not such an influence as these folks are discrimiated against. This is possible, but if so, then democracy, parliament, and the Act of Union are only 2 to 3 generations old. All of these things seem to have a strong underlying affect on what's going on at Hogwarts today. Sea Change, who was born late in his parents lives, and so is one to two generations off most of his kin. From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 23:47:08 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:47:08 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "suehpfan" wrote: > > This wand "problem" has always bothered me as well. What happened to > Peter's wand? I suppose he could have carried it into the sewer with > his teeth, hidden it and then returned to get it later. But where > did he keep it for 12 years? The same question applys to Voldemort, > Serius, and all of the DE's who escaped from Azakaban and seemed to > have rediscovered their wands upon escape. It is rather untidy. > > Sue Honey (delurking): I expect the question of what happens to the things in his pockets when an animagus transforms has been discussed, so I apologize for bringing it around again. I might guess that it works the same as the werewolf transformation. In POA, Lupin puts Harry's Invisibility Cloak into his pocket in the Shrieking Shack, and then transforms. He then gives it to Harry the next day. The pocket contents appear to return with the human form, along with the clothing. Scabbers was apparently carrying a wand for all those years. The question of the DE wands is more difficult. One might guess that the MM would destroy the wand of someone given a life sentence in Azkaban, and store wands of those with shorter sentences, but I know no canon on this point. Honey (relurking) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 00:18:36 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:18:36 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the D.A. List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > ... It concerns the D.A. list. > > First, the jinx. If Hermione had simply told the students about the > jinx, no one would have told Umbridge. Think about it. If she was > relying on the students' honesty all along, why bother putting a > jinx on the list in the first place? ... Was Hermione's object to > keep the list secret or was she just being mean? > > ...edited... > > So . . . was the purpose of the jinx to protect the students and the > list, or was it just a nasty little trick to catch someone? > bboy_mn: Ahh... the follies of childhood. More on that later... Rhetorical Question: why is it that I always find my car keys in the LAST place I look. Kids, even the very best of them, can be short sighted and impulsive, Hermione analysed the List Curse to the point where it SEEMED to solve her problem; unlike you, an adult, who looked beyond the solution to it's consequenses. This is the nature of kids; they fail to see the big picture. The purpose of the List Curse was to reveal the identity of anyone who betrayed the DA Club, and yes, to punish them. As far as she analysed it, that seemed to be the perfect solution, and since people don't like the idea of potentially being curse, or the hint that perhaps Hermione doesn't trust them, Hermione chose not to disclose it. However, you are absolutely right, if she had revealed the List was cursed, no one would have risked betraying the DA Club. > Second, Umbridge getting the D.A. list. Hermione apparently "left > [the list] behind" "pinned" to the wall of the Room of Requirement, > to quote the book. Why in the world was she carrying the list to > the D.A. meetings at all, let alone putting on the wall? Why bother > taking attendance or anything else connected to the list? Why > didn't she leave it somewhere hidden in her dorm room? > > ...edited.. > > Bobby bboy_mn: Again we are faced with the folly of youth. Hermione brought the list to the first club meeting in which Harry was named Head of the Club, and a Club name was chosed. She then wrote the new Club name on the list an pinned it up on the wall. Anyone with an any objective vision could see that that was going to be trouble. But Hermione and the other DA's believe that the room was secure. Who could possibly stumble across the room when the room vanished after they left and didn't reappear in it DA Club form until they needed it again? What they hadn't counted on was someone coming specifically to that location while the room was still in it's DA Club form. Summary, they believe the room was as secure, or more likely, more secure than any other room in the castle. >From a story perspective, Hermione needed to pin the List up, and Umbridge, or someone working with Umbridge, needed to find it, as seen in the scene in Dumbledore's office when Dumbledore claims the list is really his rather than Harry's. That got Harry off the hook and got Dumbledore out of the castle, and JKR, as an author, had to get rid of everyone but Snape before Harry has his final confrontation with Umbridge. So Umbridge sacking Hagrid, was just a story excuse to get rid of McGonagall and of course, Hagrid too, and the List left behind, was a story excuse to get rid of Dumbledore. And the justification for the believability of the List being found and the Club being betrayed by a member is that kids are kids, and they don't think things through with much depth of vision. Boys will be boys is never an acceptable excuse, but it is frequenlty an acceptable explanation. Just a thought. bboy_mn From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 17 00:31:12 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:31:12 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the D.A. List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88964 bboy_mn wrote: Rhetorical Question: why is it that I always find my car keys in the LAST place I look. Berit replies: Because most people don't go on looking when they've found their keys. Naturally then, the keys will ALWAYS be found in the last place you look :-) Sorry; so funny I had to reply to this one :-)) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From nakedkali at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 00:10:22 2004 From: nakedkali at yahoo.com (Sea Change) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:10:22 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88965 Carol mentioned the "hovering charm was performed" passive voice. ----------- Sea Change replies: I have difficulty with this one, too. It's possible that House Elves aren't allowed to do magic except at behest of their owners. If they are legally chattel and since they are percieved as not readily leaving the house that they serve, then their owners could be held responsible. Dobby is a wierdo, and shows up at Privet Dr, and Harry is registered there, so that is where the note went. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 00:50:28 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:50:28 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: <000501c3dc57$846e9150$8d667144@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88966 Iggy wrote: I think the real problem with this, as you inadvertently confirmed yourself, is that all truth and realist is subjective. There is a basic tenet of psychology that states: There is no Truth, there is only Opinion. There is no Reality, there is only Perception. To simplify: What is True or Real to you, may not be True or Real to me. It's all subjective. (There is "Truth", and there is "truth." The latter of the two, is something that is a fact that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm still inclined to believe that what's behind the door is Love. vmonte responds: I agree that love is behind the door, but not just general love, but, the love of a mother for her child. I think that Harry and Neville (and perhaps even Luna) were protected by their mothers. I believe that they sacrificed themselves (physically or mentally in Neville's mother's case) to protect their children. I have a son and I cannot think of anything more powerful than a mother's love for her child. In fact I cannot think of anything more terrible than the wrath of a mother! I could see Mrs. Weasley sacrificing herself to save her children. I wouldn't mess with her either. Maybe what is behind the door at the MoM is a physical manistation of a mother's love....who knows. vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 01:08:41 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:08:41 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Matching Armchair Rethink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88967 Sue wrote: Neville has a story and JKR is keeping it hidden for some reason, probably because it's a barn burner. It would make it even better if it was connected to Snape's story! vmonte responds: I think that the prophecy is really about Neville. I think that he is being protected by DD or his family. I do think someone has been making Neville appear less powerful than he really is. His father's wand, the "tampered" rememberall (just my guess), memory charm, etc., are all gifts given to hamper him. Also, his family makes Neville believe that he is not a great wizard like his father. Things are begining to change for Neville. I wonder if he will get the special in the window at Ollivander's. The wand given a special place of honor? I also wonder if the gum wrappers Neville's mom gives him are laced with anti-memory charm curse. She may be helping him. From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 17 02:10:11 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:10:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3dc9f$09849320$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88968 > > vmonte responds: > I agree that love is behind the door, but not just general love, but, > the love of a mother for her child. I think that Harry and Neville > (and perhaps even Luna) were protected by their mothers. I believe > that they sacrificed themselves (physically or mentally in Neville's > mother's case) to protect their children. I have a son and I cannot > think of anything more powerful than a mother's love for her child. > In fact I cannot think of anything more terrible than the wrath of a > mother! I could see Mrs. Weasley sacrificing herself to save her > children. I wouldn't mess with her either. Maybe what is behind the > door at the MoM is a physical manistation of a mother's love....who > knows. > Iggy here: I think you're on the right track, but not completely. I don't think it's just a mother's love for a child, since a father's love can be just as strong. (I know, as a father myself...) I think that it's more like a love so strong that even death pales by comparison. The Christians would probably say that it's like the love God and Christ felt for the world that allowed for the sacrifice on the cross. The Jews would probably say that it's the love Moses felt for his people that he was able to save them, even in defying his adopted family and former life. Many Pagans would probably say that it's like the love Mother Gaia feels for all the creatures she has given birth to. It's a love that makes anything bearable, and by experiencing it, one can transcend themselves. I also have a hunch that the climax to the books will be in Harry and Voldemort crashing through the door somehow... and Harry being bathed, healed, and being restored by the purity of the love. On the other hand, Voldemort will not be able to bear it, and will be torn apart and virtually disintegrated by the purity of it... annihilated by being suffused with the antithesis of his being... purest love verses his all consuming hatred. Just a theory... Iggy McSnurd From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 17 02:29:29 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:29:29 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: <000101c3dc9f$09849320$8d667144@Einstein> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040117152656.00a62b30@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 88969 At 20:10 16/01/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Iggy here: > >I think you're on the right track, but not completely. I don't think >it's just a mother's love for a child, since a father's love can be just >as strong. (I know, as a father myself...) > >I think that it's more like a love so strong that even death pales by >comparison. The Christians would probably say that it's like the love >God and Christ felt for the world that allowed for the sacrifice on the >cross. The Jews would probably say that it's the love Moses felt for >his people that he was able to save them, even in defying his adopted >family and former life. Many Pagans would probably say that it's like >the love Mother Gaia feels for all the creatures she has given birth to. > > >It's a love that makes anything bearable, and by experiencing it, one >can transcend themselves. > > >I also have a hunch that the climax to the books will be in Harry and >Voldemort crashing through the door somehow... and Harry being bathed, >healed, and being restored by the purity of the love. On the other >hand, Voldemort will not be able to bear it, and will be torn apart and >virtually disintegrated by the purity of it... annihilated by being >suffused with the antithesis of his being... purest love verses his all >consuming hatred. > > >Just a theory... > >Iggy McSnurd Tanya here I could be mistaken, leaving room for error. But this type of love is called agape love, it's as you said, but it is also unconditional. But the theory at the end. Not heard that one before, but it's a possibility Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 17 02:53:37 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:53:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040117152656.00a62b30@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: <000201c3dca5$1b39c030$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 88970 > Tanya here > > I could be mistaken, leaving room for error. But this type of love is > called agape love, it's > as you said, but it is also unconditional. Iggy here: Nope. You have it exactly. Unconditional and all consuming love for another person... or potentially even people as a whole. > > But the theory at the end. Not heard that one before, but it's a > possibility > > Tanya > *grin* Thanks. I thought it was a rather nice theory myself. The only problem is, as good a one as it is, does it sound a little clich?? (Kinda like the opening of the Ark in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or the thing with the Grail in "the Last Crusade.") Iggy McSnurd From editor at texas.net Sat Jan 17 03:04:27 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:04:27 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Appropriate terminology References: <1C9AA266-483B-11D8-94D1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <005501c3dca6$9ee81e80$c558aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 88971 Kneazy: > I am sure that we all abhor the thoughtless and insensitive use of > inappropriate language when referring to individuals or groups in the > Potterverse. We can't be too careful; labels can be *so* socially > divisive and it is all too easy to fall into unacceptable > anthropo-centric thought patterns with their overtones of cultural > imperialism. > > In an effort to maintain the high ethical standards of the site, I > offer the following gentler, less stereotypically negative alternatives > as replacements for terms that may have caused distress to non-existent > beings. You forgot one: Ghost: Individual of post-biological status ~Amanda (who wishes she'd thought of it, but it's from an ooollld post) From hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu Sat Jan 17 03:16:08 2004 From: hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu (phanbu) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:16:08 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88972 > Neri again: > So what was the special mission??? Ron is sent back to be Dumbledore. Dumbledore needs to be there, as you said, to "help the past along its way." Someone has to be Dumbledore, so why not Ron. I'm not saying that I believe that this is how it happened. I'm just saying that if you believe that time travel will play a critical role in the conclusion of the series, and if you believe that Ron is Dumbledore, then (according to WDID) you must believe that there is no "special mission" except for Ron to act as Dumbledore. The real question is whether Dumbledore seems to know so much about Harry's life at Hogwarts because he was there (as Ron) or if he's just a wise old wizard. The former supports the "Ron as Dumbledore" theory and requires his "mistakes" to be explained away. The latter is simpler in that we need only awe at his wisdom. > And I think it would be really cruel to separate Fred and George for > 130 years. Couldn't you send Charlie instead? I wrote this mostly in jest, but decided that there needs to be a brother sent along with Ron. It doesn't matter which brother, but someone has to be Aberforth. He can't just magically appear from thin air. ...or can he? ;) - Phanbu From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 17 03:34:36 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:34:36 -0000 Subject: Question about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christy" wrote: > In flipping through the reecent posts about the Marauders, I've been > struck by the number of people who are working on theories that one or > all of the Marauders were in Slytherin. Now me, Marianne: Christy, I'm one of those people, but I'm truly not wed to the idea that MWPP were Slytherins. I think that cases can easily be made for James and Sirius, and I've tended to argue in that direction lately simply because it strikes me that JKR has left the door, at least for those two characters, wide open. Peter is somewhat ambiguous - he doesn't seem to have an obvious dose of Gryffindor bravery in the common, accepted sense of that trait. In other words, he doesn't seem to be capable of standing on his own to face a challenge that he knows is bigger than he is. He's always struck me as someone who will do whatever he has to do to survive, which fits quite nicely into Phineas Nigellus' statement about Slytherins being (bad paraphrase here) willing to do whatever they have to do to survive. Slytherins will not fight a fight they know they can't win. Instead, they'll fold their tents and wait until the weather clears. Not particularly brave, but certainly it gives them a better opportunity to ensure their genes make it into the next generation. Remus is the wild card in this. I don't really see him as a Slytherin, either. But, maybe there are things we don't yet know about him. I think a commen perception of Remus is of someone desperate to fit in and to hide his affliction. Also he can be seen as someone who knows he has been given a great opportunity to attend Hogwarts and he will do whatever he can to succeed there. So, why can't that be Slytherin-ish? Remus' great motivation during his school years could have been his ambition to get as much knowledge and learning that he could while at Hogwarts, while keeping his lycanthropy secret. He could certainly have these traits as a Slytherin, couldn't he? Christy: > Now, I could see where Sirius could have been sorted into Slytherin. I > could also just as easily see him in Gryffindor. James could also go > either way (just as Harry could have, or several other students that > I'm entirely sure the Sorting Hat took some time thinking over). > > My question however is, what makes somebody think that Remus Lupin > could have been in Slytherin? The only way this theory makes sense is > if you say the Hat simply put him there cause it needed to fill a > space (A theory I don't buy, or else why bother putting any > personalities to the houses at all. I doubt JKR just put it there > cause it sounded cute). Marianne: See above. I agree, filling space is not a good reason. Christy: > IMHO, Remus almost had to be a Gryffindor. And if I was forced to pick > another house, it'd be Ravenclaw. Remus is talented and smart but > clearly was a foolish child (as most children tend to be) who got into > trouble. But instead of curling into a ball and hiding, he tried to go > to school and in fact risked the danger of other people finding out. > He lives his life, essentially, as a poor scholar because he can't > find a job, but he keeps going. > > One of his friends was a traitor and the other two were killed but > Remus manages to go on (and yes, I know all about the theories that > Remus killed Sirius. I don't buy that). Marianne: Me neither. It just doesn't ring true to me. Christy: > All of that takes a degree of courage, strength of heart so to speak. > That's what Gryffindor house is all about. (I'm sure it's also obvious > that I'm quite fond of Lupin). Marianne: As am I. I really don't know why I feel this compulsion to argue how MWPP could have been Slytherins. I just do. I think it's because JKR has not seen fit to spell out in big, capital letters what house MWPP were in. It just has that feel to it that there is a surprise awaiting Harry in this, and the only house that would surprise him would be Slytherin. Marianne From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 17 04:04:49 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:04:49 -0000 Subject: Marauding Rita In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > Hi everybody! > > An idea that just came up in my mind (forgive if I'm the 100th to > ask). Rita being an animaga and MWPP being animagi brought up the > question if she taught them those skills perhaps (not as a Hogwarts > teacher I mean). Or if they learned those together. She being 43 > (1994) and Snape 35-36 (1995/6) leaves a small chance that they met > at Hogwarts in their first year and perhaps maintained contact > afterwards (her being perhaps employed in Hogsmead). Marianne responds: I don't think Rita had anything to do with MWP becoming Animagi. When Remus speaks of it in PoA, he seems to imply that the boys figured it out on their own. Plus, Peter needed help from James and Sirius to succeed in this. No mention of Rita. Peter: > Who's responsible in the MoM for registering animagi anyway? Whoever > was in charge to control the observance of the animagus registration > rules in those times cannot have done quite a good job: 4 unregistered > animagi, maybe more to come, only 7 registered in that century (PoA). Well, I wonder if this is all on the honor system. If someone figured out how to become an Animagus, how would whoever was responsible in the MoM for registering these people know? I mean, unless there was some method of tracing budding Animagi, how would the MoM have any clue? Marianne From sophierom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 05:05:25 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (Christina Kopp) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:05:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Perkins and the meaning of warlock in the HP universe Message-ID: <20040117050525.9521.qmail@web80810.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88975 Rolshan wrote: Carol wrote: Sophierom: Perhaps JKR uses warlock to as a term of respect for older or more experienced male wizards. Dumbledore is the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, which seems like it would be something like Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of the U.S. Ideally, this position is appointed to the most experienced or the wisest of judges. Though Perkins doesn't share Dumbledore's high position of power, the Weasley's might use warlock to describe him because of his old age. Not completely sure of his age, but Perkins seems to be old. He is mentioned as having lumbago in GOF (sorry, don't know page number ... books elsewhere). Maybe, then, being called in "old warlock" is more respectful than saying he's an "old wizard." Whatever JKR means by warlock, the fact that she uses the term to describe a seemingly insignificant character suggests to me that she's hinting at some greater importance for Perkins. As Rolshan pointed out in post 88843 (snipped above), Perkins' tent reminds Harry of Mrs. Figg's cats (perhaps he's part of the old Order ... or he has some contact or relationship with Mrs. Figg?). And Binns' calling Harry "Perkins" is really interesting. It could just be a red herring (Perkins and Potter both start with P and Binns really is out of it) ... or it could suggest that Binns taught the old warlock Perkins back when he was still alive. Maybe Perkins was one of his best students? With JKR, who knows? (An odd side note: practitioners of Wicca define warlocks not as male witches but as traitors! From my dim recollection of Perkins, he hardly seems like a traitor, and since there is also the position of Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, I seriously doubt that JKR uses the Wiccan definition of warlock.) Sophierom __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 17 05:25:10 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:25:10 -0000 Subject: Is Snape protected by Fidelius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88976 What if Snape's identity as Dumbledore's spy is protected by the Fidelius charm? As Secret Keeper, Dumbledore could reveal that Snape was a spy to the court at the Pensieve trials and still expect it to remain secret.The people at the trials would never be able to tell anyone else what they'd heard. It also makes more sense out of the Occlumency bungle. Snape can reveal himself "Yes, Potter, that is my job" without fear. Voldemort, even if he is occupying Harry's mind at that moment, will not find out. But the Secret Keeper is another matter, and this may be another reason that Dumbledore chose not to teach Occlumency to Harry himself. GoF does say that Harry told Ron and Hermione about "everything Harry had seen in the Pensieve." But if Dumbledore's words "and turned spy for us" were omitted by the operation of Fidelius, would Harry even know? Pippin From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 07:36:11 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:36:11 -0000 Subject: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... In-Reply-To: <20040117050525.9521.qmail@web80810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christina Kopp wrote: > Rolshan wrote: > questions: > 1. referred to as a warlock when all other male wizards are "wizards", > ...edited... > > Carol wrote: > <... No other character, IIRC, is referred to by that term. I always > thought a warlock was just a male witch, but JKR seems to use > "wizard" in that sense. So what is a warlock by JKR's definition and > how is he different from other wizards?> > > Sophierom: > > Perhaps JKR uses warlock to as a term of respect for older or more > experienced male wizards. Dumbledore is the Chief Warlock of the > Wizengamot, ...edited... > > ... Maybe, then, being called in "old warlock" is more respectful > than saying he's an "old wizard." > > Whatever JKR means by warlock, the fact that she uses the term to > describe a seemingly insignificant character suggests to me that > she's hinting at some greater importance for Perkins. ... With JKR, > who knows? > > ...edited... > > Sophierom bboy_mn: This did come up before and our conclusion was that we could really reach no conclusion. See below... >From Post... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/77875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bboy_mn: This is a question we dealt with recently, but without much resolution. Tue Jul 29, 2003 Subject: Wizard or Warlock- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/73992 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74078 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74263 and post by many others on the subject. It is quite clear that Harry knows a warlock when he sees one, and they are generally characterized as a little rough and rowdy. I speculated that it might be a regional/cultural distinction, but even I admit that it is a little weak. Points- Warlock: - Ernie Macillan can trace his ancestry back through 9 generations of warlocks. - there is both - - - International Confederation of Wizards (SS4, GF17) - - International Federation of Warlocks (PA3) - Perkins, who is Mr. Weasley's assistant is a warlock. - Dumbledore is Chief Warlock. - in the Leaky Cauldron, Harry sees "wild-looking warlocks". - In the Three Broomsticks, Harry sees a "bunch of rowdy warlocks". (from HP Lexicon - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/titles.html#Warlock Lots of good info on Warlocks here.) Plus some info about Hags- I think to draw any information on Hags we have to us formal definitions and mythology. Hag n. 1. An old woman considered ugly or frightful. 2.a. A witch; a sorceress. b. Obsolete. A female demon (Am Heritage Dic) I think the female demon is probably the most significant as I don't think Hags are considered very nice people. In mythology, the only thing I really know about Hags is that they typically eat children. Note that the Hag in the Leaky Cauldron orders a plate of RAW liver. Having said all that and what I said in my previous posts, I have to add that I don't think we really know what the distinction is. Just a thought. bboy_mn From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 07:45:57 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:45:57 -0000 Subject: Is Snape protected by Fidelius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88978 pippin wrote: > What if Snape's identity as Dumbledore's spy is protected by the > Fidelius charm? As Secret Keeper, Dumbledore could reveal > that Snape was a spy to the court at the Pensieve trials and still > expect it to remain secret.The people at the trials would never be > able to tell anyone else what they'd heard. > > It also makes more sense out of the Occlumency bungle. Snape > can reveal himself "Yes, Potter, that is my job" without fear. > Voldemort, even if he is occupying Harry's mind at that moment, > will not find out. But the Secret Keeper is another matter, and this > may be another reason that Dumbledore chose not to teach > Occlumency to Harry himself. Erin: But, from the way I understood the charm to work, if Dumbledore is Snape's secret keeper this time around, then Snape should have not been able to admit to Harry that he was spying. Only DD could do that. Unless Snape is his own secret keeper? Erin From EnsTren at aol.com Sat Jan 17 07:47:54 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:47:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88979 In a message dated 1/17/2004 2:37:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: It is quite clear that Harry knows a warlock when he sees one, and they are generally characterized as a little rough and rowdy. I speculated that it might be a regional/cultural distinction, but even I admit that it is a little weak. Points- Warlock: - Ernie Macillan can trace his ancestry back through 9 generations of warlocks. - there is both - - - International Confederation of Wizards (SS4, GF17) - - International Federation of Warlocks (PA3) - Perkins, who is Mr. Weasley's assistant is a warlock. - Dumbledore is Chief Warlock. - in the Leaky Cauldron, Harry sees "wild-looking warlocks". - In the Three Broomsticks, Harry sees a "bunch of rowdy warlocks". (from HP Lexicon - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/titles.html#Warlock Lots of good info on Warlocks here.) I was thinking it over, and while Warlock, in the dictionary, means "Oathbreaker" and "Traitor" I did take note of the points you made and had a though. What if the wizarding meaning "warlock" is in the more morden means from the might and magic games and the like. Someone who battles with magic, a magical warrior, or whatnot, but isn't an Auror, and made something of a carreer out of it. It fits the rough and rowdy imagry AND Dumbledore's distinction of being a "Chief Warlock" Thoughts? Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ktd7 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 07:50:27 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:50:27 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > As I was rereading the Sorceror's Stone, I came across a line at the > end that sounded similar to a line at the end of OotP, both > coincidentally, by Dumbledore. > In PS/SS, Dumbledore says to Harry ..."The truth." Dumbledore > sighed. "It is a BEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE thing, and should therefore be > treated with great caution..." > > In OotP: "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries," interrupted > Dumbledore, "That is kept locked at all times. It contains a force > that is at once more WONDERFUL AND MORE TERRIBLE than death, than > human intelligence, than forces of nature..." > > Ok, yet again, I am making no sense. But the truth, or being true are > similar and word play can be introduced I would suppose. Suppose what > is locked in the Department of Mysteries, is the Truth, and Harry is > very true apparently to his friends and his missions and his will to > stop the dark side? The whole argument with Dumbledore skirts around > the truth, and Dumbledore speaks of the DoM and its little secret. > > The latter line by Dumbledore has always got me thinking as to what it > is, many say love, but I think JKR said that it was very close, but no > cigar, well that's how I interpreted what she said, though I can't > recall the reference to that right off the bat. > I've asked something similar before... Dumbledore tells Harry that it is his HEART... something he has in great amounts that Voldemort does not have at all. Everyone takes HEART to be synonymous with LOVE, but it has many more meanings!!!! Doesn't it seem significant that the word HEART has so many definitions? Even more to the point, each of the attributes of Hogwarts Houses can be represented with the word HEART when used in different ways. For example: Gryffindor: HEART = Courage "He has the heart of a lion." Gee, that works pretty well! Slytherin: HEART = Ambition "He didn't have the heart to finish the race" Hufflepuff: HEART = Loyalty, Hard working "His heart is in the right place" Ravenclaw: HEART = Seat of Intellect "He performed the worst atrocities the human heart can devise." I think JKR chose the word HEART because it has so many possible definitions beyond just LOVE. Maybe she wasn't trying to align each house with the word, but just maybe, the word HEART ultimately sums up what unites Hogwarts and what is needed to unite the wizarding world. If Harry is a descendent of all the original founders of Hogwarts, he could embody HEART in all of its definitions. Karen From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 17 07:51:59 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:51:59 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "capehoneysuckle" wrote: Honey > I expect the question of what happens to the things in his pockets > when an animagus transforms has been discussed, so I apologize for > bringing it around again. I might guess that it works the same as the > werewolf transformation. In POA, Lupin puts Harry's Invisibility Cloak > into his pocket in the Shrieking Shack, and then transforms. He then > gives it to Harry the next day. The pocket contents appear to return > with the human form, along with the clothing. Scabbers was apparently > carrying a wand for all those years. > > The question of the DE wands is more difficult. One might guess that > the MM would destroy the wand of someone given a life sentence in > Azkaban, and store wands of those with shorter sentences, but I know > no canon on this point. Geoff: Don't forget that they were threatening to destroy Harry's wand after a simple Underage Sorcery case.... "Ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence shortly to destroy your wand" (OOTP "A Peck of Owls" p.30 UK edition) This reaction sounds a bit over the top quite frankly. Is this the dreaded Umbridge in action again? From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 17 07:59:22 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:59:22 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88982 > > wrote: > > > I wonder just what are the qualifications of being an auror? I > mean we know from OotP that one has to exceed academically as well > as have no criminal record; but I wonder after all Harry has done > for Hogwarts > > > > sachmet96 > > That no criminal record could be a problem for Harry. He tried to > use an unforgivable and even if it's not on record he might get > asked if he has ever used such curses, <> So I can't see him > as an auror and I don't think there should be exceptions just > because he is famous. > >> > > Frost: > I agree that would be problematic for Harry, but not crippling. He > only tried, and couldn't beyond a half a second. sachmet96 That's no excuse if it were then everyone who tries to shoot someone and misses because of inexperience with a gun would also not be guilty. Frost wrote: Maybe. > It sounds like becoming an auror is similar to working for the FBI > (or British equivalent, sorry, I am ignorant and do not know what it > is.) I've known a couple of people who were trying to get to work > there, and in other branches of the gov't and they were checked out > so thoroughly... there couldn't help but be marks against them. But > that didn't leave them sitting dead in the water. sachmet96 But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at the age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. > Sachmet96 > >> > He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above > average. > >> Frost wrote: > He doesn't have to, if he can be exceptional by trying. Just being > naturally talented doesn't make you somehow better. It just means > that you have a slight edge. You still have to be able to work hard, > concentrate, learn, and grow or you're going to stagnate in your > natural talent. Anyone else who works harder will become better > than you. > Harry has shown the willingness to work hard, and push himself. > IE, how and why he learned to do the Patronus Charm. He learned it > while fainting from fear and hearing the voices of his dying parents > and their murderer in his head. They learned it in a comfortable > room, without even the benefit of a Bogart-dementor. I doubt any of > them, with the exception of Hermione, would be able to produce a > real patronus when faced with a real dementor. sachmet96 I do think all of them would be able to do it (or nearly all of them). Of course we will have to wait and see for the next books to hopefully get an answer. Frost wrote: He has leadership skills, and can work well on a > team. sachmet96 I also disagree here. He only works well with a team of his choosing and his leadership skills worked reasonably well for a team of his choosing too but that doesn't say anything how it will be with others. It was shown so far that he doesn't like to work with others but is constantly trying to solve anything on his own - so he is not really a team's person. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 08:27:14 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:27:14 -0000 Subject: Time travel : what does Ron know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88983 > Olivier : > > Wow, an impressive series of great arguments back and forth ! Neri: thanks! > Olivier : > I will try to give what seems to me to be a plausible version of Knight2King. > > So, let us review the hypothesis. Around the end of book seven, Ron travels willingly > or not 130 years back in the past. He discovers he has to impersonate Dumbledore. Neri notes: Not impersonate DD, but *be* DD. It is very easy to forget that time travel is for real. > Olivier : > Now the key point here in my opinion is that if Ron had to do that, it was probably > quite unexcpected. He has not prepared a slightest bit. All he knows about time- > travel is that it is very dangerous to change the past. So he acts as best as he can to > mimick Dumbledore's life. Neri answers: Ron *is* DD, the greatest wizard of our time. He has more than 60 years until Tom Riddle's time to be born. During that time, he has the power, the motive and the experience to become the world's greatest expert on time travel and past changing. He knows LV is Tom Riddle (DD himself told him in CoS) and when Tom is to be born. Does he prevent Tom from ever being born, or does he sits idly and watch? I have a problem with each of these alternatives. > Olivier : He knows from the present that he must work with Flamel, > that he must defeat Gindelwald and so on. > > But there are also a lot of things he does not know. And that is the solution to many > problems of Ron!DD. Neri again: Ron does know that Lily and James died because they trusted Wormtail. Does Ron!DD warns them or not? Will he have to confess to Harry by the end of book 7 that he is responsible not only for Sirius' death, but also for the death of Harry's parents? You might say that Ron!DD knowingly scarified Lily and James in order to make the prophesy true. That's still sounds a horrible dilemma to me. But couldn't he, at the very least, find a way to save the Longbottoms from being tortured to insanity by Bellatrix et al? In OotP JKR made sure Ron knows about this too. > > Ron does not know what the prophecy says (before he hears it from Trelawney) nor > when Harry learned about it. Therefore, his speech at the end of OoP is not a lie, Ron! > DD does not know when he has to tell Harry about the prophecy and that is a terrible > dilemma for him. > > Now another problem, pointed by Neri > > > Neri responds: > > Imagine that by the end of Book 7 it turns out that DD is Ron, and > > Harry asks him: "why didn't you tell me that if I'll go to the DoM > > Sirius will die?". What would DD answer? "Because I believed you > > would have gone anyway"? I wouldn't have accepted such an answer if I > > was Harry, and I won't accept it as a reader. > > Olivier : > I think Ron!DD might have tried everything he could to save Sirius. But we have to > remember that Ron!DD is not omniscient, all he recalls from his past, is that in his > fifth year LV tried to lure Harry inside the DoM and that he had to prevent that. Well > Canon!DD does exactly that : he tries as hard as he can to prevent Harry to fall under > the influence of LV, and when he realizes Harry has gone, he goes there as quick as > he can and almost manages to save Sirius. Neri: He could have been there before, waiting with all the Order members to back him up, and catch the DEs before Harry et al ever get to the DoM. > Olivier : > Why did he not say plain and simple "whatever happens Harry, do not go to the DoM !" > I think he even did better than that, after all, he cannot be sure Harry will be tempted > exactly by the same trap in this time-line (here I suppose that at least in Ron's mind, > it is possible to change the past). So he insisted again and again on the importance of > Occlumency. The only problem is that Harry lied. In OoP, Ron believes that Harry has > kept on working Occlumency, hence so does Ron!DD, and despite all his efforts, he > failed. Neri answers: OotP, p. 681 (US): Ron and Hermione had wanted to hear news of Sirius. As Harry had not confided in them the reason he had wanted to talk to Sirius in the first place, it had been hard to think of what to tell them; he had ended up saying, truthfully, that Sirius wanted Harry to resume Occlumency lessons. He had been regretting this ever since; Hermione would not let the subject drop and kept reverting to it when Harry least expected it. 'You can't tell me you've stopped having funny dreams,' Hermione said now, 'because Ron told me you were muttering in your sleep again last night.' OotP, p.734: 'You don't get it!' Harry shouted at her, 'I'm not having nightmares, I'm not just dreaming! What d'you think all the Occlumency was for, why d'you think Dumbledore wanted me prevented from seeing these things? Because they're REAL, Hermione ? Sirius is trapped, I've seen him. Voldemort's got him, and no one else knows, and that means we're the only ones who can save him." Same page, Ron is still present: 'But Harry, you've just said it,' said Hermione fiercely, 'Dumbledore wanted you to learn to shut these things out of your mind, if you'd done Occlumency properly you'd never have seen this ? ' 'IF YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO ACT LIKE I HAVEN'T SEEN ? ' And p. 771: 'Where do we go, then, Harry?' Ron asked. 'I don't ? ' Harry began. He swallowed. 'In the dreams I went through the door at the end of the corridor from the lifts into a dark room ? that's this one ? and then I went through another door into a room that kind of . . . glitters." So Ron does know that Harry quitted the occlumency lessons, and that they completly failed to protect him. Ron also knows who was the DA sneak. Ron!DD could have prevented the event that caused him to flee Hogwarts and leave Harry alone at the most critical time. Or does he just sit and wait for it to happen? I humbly apologies, I really feel bad because I find it so damn easy to play the devil advocate here, while you are fighting an uphill battle. This most unfair situation happens because, as I tried to demonstrate in my original post, time travel is not like any other magical plot device. Getting time travel to work *and* getting a good plot out of it is extremely difficult, especially so late in the game. But we (and JKR) might still manage it. > Olivier : > And this is why he is so sad at the end of OoP, Ron has failed significantly for the first > time since he has started being DD. > > Now why is DD optimistic despite him being forced to relive everything without being > able to change anything ? In my opinion, Ron does not relive at all, Ron discovers, and > has a great time while at it. Besides, it could be that when Ron set out for the past, the > good side was taking a definite edge in the war, so he knows it is going to be hard, > but he also has high hopes. > > Why didn't he stop Tom Riddle opening the Chamber ? I guess the answer to that is > the sheer cleverness of Tom and Ron's ethic. He cannot act against Tom without a > proof that he is going to turn to the dark side. And Tom is brilliant enough to attack > Myrtle before Ron spots him. But once Tom has revealed himself, Ron knows that his > great task is going to start, so he starts his watch (see Tom's account of that in CoS). > > Only Tom outsmarts him again ("probably the most brilliant student" in the own > words of DD) and disappear, beginning his transformation into LV. > So in conclusion, I don't think there is a real implausibility to Knight2King. > Neri again: I think we are converging on the same solution from different directions. The problem is how to make Ron!DD know a lot, but still not know too much. What would you say to the Single Loop Feint with only a partial amnesia? Say, only 80% amnesia and you can pick the parts that Ron!DD does not remember:-) > Olivier : > Let us see if that is the way JKR chose. > Neri: I certainly agree with that! Neri From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 08:29:17 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:29:17 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88984 Phanbu wrote: I wrote this mostly in jest, but decided that there needs to be a brother sent along with Ron. It doesn't matter which brother, but someone has to be Aberforth. He can't just magically appear from thin air. ...or can he? ;) vmonte responds: Unless there was something critical that needed to be done the day that Aberforth was spotted by Moody. Supposedly that is the only time Aberforth was ever seen. DD may have needed to come back twice to correct a mistake. It could be DD playing Aberforth--is he an identical twin? I guess this will be answered in book 6. I hate time travel !!! vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 08:57:04 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:57:04 -0000 Subject: Time travel : what does Ron know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88985 vmonte: DD knows everything Ron knows. That doesn't mean that he can force people to behave the way he wants, or that his plans to save people in the past will always work. What is key is that DD is trying to manipulate events in the past. Unfortunately, when a change occurs he then has no previous knowledge to work from. Let's say Sirius was originally killed before the fight at the MoM. DD changes the past and saves Sirius. Now the timeline has changed and he no longer knows what will happen next, regarding Sirius. Even if DD is capable of saving Sirius, he cannot force Sirius to behave the way he wants him to. DD changes the past but Sirius dies anyway because Sirius is a grown man who will make decisions that are independantly based. I think DD did try to save Harry's parents, but he couldn't. Let's say that in the original timeline Lily and James were killed even when Sirius was their keeper. Ron goes back in time and knows this and perhaps inadvertantly causes Sirius to remove himself as keeper. Ron (DD) may have put extra pressure on Sirius and it may have caused Sirius to distrust his ability as keeper. Wormtail becomes keeper (a new event unknown to DD) and the Potter's are killed. Why would Ron let Ginny be a victim of Tom Riddle? Why didn't he get rid of the CoS when he knew that it was going to happen? Because he knew that no one would get killed. And perhaps Harry needed to go through this experience to prepare him for a future event. It is also possible that Tom Riddle inadvertantly caused Ginny to become a stronger witch, and she too will benefit from this encounter. vmonte From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 09:40:42 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:40:42 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88986 > Phanbu wrote: > I wrote this mostly in jest, but decided that there needs to be a > brother sent along with Ron. It doesn't matter which brother, but > someone has to be Aberforth. He can't just magically appear from > thin air. ...or can he? ;) > > vmonte responds: > Unless there was something critical that needed to be done the day > that Aberforth was spotted by Moody. Supposedly that is the only time > Aberforth was ever seen. DD may have needed to come back twice to > correct a mistake. It could be DD playing Aberforth--is he an > identical twin? I guess this will be answered in book 6. > > I hate time travel !!! > > vmonte Neri adds: As a SF reader I also used to hate time travel, until I read "The door into summer" by R. Heinlein. Highly recommended while waiting for Book 6. It is also the most cheerful story that Heinlein wrote. Regarding Aberforth, DD mentions him in GoF with a strange mixture of ridicule and affection. I can't think of any brother of Ron who would fit. Well, maybe Percy, but Percy certainly knows how to read. If the Ron!DD twist is true, I suspect Aberforth is not a biological brother. I suspect that there was a real Dumbledore family back in the past that adopted Ron, and Aberforth is one of them. After all, Ron could hardly become DD out of the blue, without any background, and go take the NEWTs. Unless Aberforth is DD's alter ago, which is very likely. Neri From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jan 17 10:22:45 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:22:45 -0000 Subject: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, EnsTren at a... wrote: > > What if the wizarding meaning "warlock" is in the more morden means from the > might and magic games and the like. Someone who battles with magic, a magical > warrior, or whatnot, but isn't an Auror, and made something of a carreer out > of it. > > It fits the rough and rowdy imagry AND Dumbledore's distinction of being a > "Chief Warlock" > > Thoughts? It's highly likely that JKR has redefined 'warlock', but if she hasn't.... The entry in Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: Warlock. An evil spirit. A wizard. O.E. waeloga, a traitor, one who breaks his word. The S.O.E.D. gives 4 meanings, none of them friendly ( one is a monster or giant which would make identification easy). The individual closest to the definitions would be Voldemort or at a stretch Pettigrew. Now what can we read into that? Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jan 17 11:36:50 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:36:50 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, > Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > > {Pippin} > > You know, I've been mulling over Kneasy's vampire challenge, > > and I'm not sure there are *any* undead in the Potterverse. > > > > {Anne} > > Aw, Pip...don't give up. I Don't think Kneasy (or any of us really) > is challenging the existence of undead Vampires in the HP > world, simply WHO happens to be one. << > > *I* am challenging the existence of undead Vampires. In fact, I > challenge the existence of undead in the Potterverse, period. I > hereby state the theory that all the things that look like undead or > have a reputation in real life folklore as undead, *including > vampires* are something else. They are manifestations like > poltergeists, ghosts and Dementors that have no ties to a mortal > body. Or they are illusions. Or they are living magical creatures > and can eat, breathe and reproduce --like the Thestrals, the > Veela and the Ghouls--I can't believe I forgot them. > Hey! Steady on! Don't do anything rash. It wasn't my intention to scupper an entire field of speculation; seemingly fertile ground for discussion, disagreement, recrimination and life-long emnity. That would eliminate half the fun. My argument was very definitely centred on the Snape!Vampire heresy. Other un-dead are a another thing entirely, IMO. True, we have no direct evidence, but when has that ever stopped the firm declaration of a perverse poster? Vampires exist in the WW. How they are defined is unknown, but they must bear some sort of relationship to traditional legend. If they don't, why call them vampires? A un-undead beast who preys on flesh and blood would be an ogre (no mention so far), so the term 'vampire' must have some significance. Additionally, there is Pavarti's boggert. An animated mummy. Why should she fear an imaginary being more than a whole beastiary of 'real' monsters? Note that the rest of the class seemed to accept it as an acceptable and reasonable cause of terror. And if they didn't exist I'm sure Hermione would have had something scathing to say. Slim evidence, yes. But I live in hope. Ah! The dark of the moon; that piquant graveyard smell; maggot-ridden flesh; the trail of digits and limbs surplus to requirements as a monstrous being lurches towards an unsuspecting victim! Surely JKR won't deny us a glimpse into the necropolis? Kneasy From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 19:47:12 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:47:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Underage magic was: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040116194712.62347.qmail@web25007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88989 Mandy wrote: It seems to me that only wand magic is completely illegal for children and the MOM is always aware when a child breaks that law. Anneli: Is the thing the MoM is aware of the fact that a child's wand has been used for magic? Like, Harry got blamed when Dobby used his wand. So a child could use someone else's wand freely, without being caught? I was also wondering - are broomsticks instrinsically magic? Could a squib ride a broomstick? Or travel by Floo, for that matter? Anneli --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 21:04:48 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:04:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040116210448.6626.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88990 Dave wrote: I think hits to the hub of Snape, his duplicity, he acts mean and evil, yet he helps Harry when he needs him. He has the Dark Mark of the Death Eaters yet Dumbledore 'trusts' him. He also has the ability, 'Legimens' and 'Occlumency' to read others minds and block his own thoughts, which could mean he tells some people what they want to hear whilst blocking his true thoughts. Anneli: At the end of GoF when Harry's in the hospital wing, DD says something to Snape (sorry no page ref.) at which he turns pale and leaves. I thought this might be DD telling Snape that he has to rejoin the DEs. Snape will be able to block Voldie from reading his thoughts and telling that he's a spy. There's a bit in OotP when Harry's learning occlumency. He gets angry and asks Snape sarkily if it's his job to get info about Voldy (or something - sorry about memory). Snape smiles and says "yes, it is". I thought this was a ref to the fact that by now Snape is working as a double agent. Anneli --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 16 21:40:22 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:40:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Love and Sacrifice: ultimate weapons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040116214022.1451.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 88991 lunamk03 wrote: At the end of the book, Dumbledore tells Harry that two sister wands cannot fight against each other. Anneli: How did Voldemort get his wand back anyway. He can't have had it when he was bodiless. When he cursed Harry and was vanquished, was his wand left behind at the house, and if so, what happened to it? Anneli --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 17 04:27:40 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:27:40 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88992 Iggy wrote: The only problem is, as good a one as it is, does it sound a little clich?? (Kinda like the opening of the Ark in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or the thing with the Grail in "the Last Crusade.") Sawsan here: I really like that theory, and even though it might be a bit cliche I do think that JKR has her own way of over coming them well, don't you think?? For example, How she brings the witches and broomsticks, but now there are different types and she even gives us a history on why they were used in Quidditch Through the Ages. The theory about the truth was basically just for fun, I know it made little sense, but I like to see what people have to say and hopefully all opinions together can form a truthful theory **wink**. Its just that JKR said that love was very close to what was in the DoM but not exactly it. So the Sacrificial love sounds great, but we will say. By the way, that is what I had believed was in the DoM, but you never know with JKR. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 17 04:41:45 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:41:45 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88993 to AnneMehr I like it when you say it better :)) You made me make sense!!! Great I am glad that you pointed out a lot more than what I expected. I have always been a big DoM sacrificial love supporter until I read that JKR said that it was close. Yes, real Love is hard to find but the actual truth is an endangered species, very good observation. Well lets just leave it as, the truth will set us free when JKR actually lets us in on what the truth about the DoM secret weapon is. Perhaps Voldi will realize the truth of his life and actions and and his true self will emerge, not Voldemort, but Tom Riddle, a half wizard who has strayed from his true self in order to become something he is not. Oh I dont know but it sounded good in my head. Thank You Annemehr because its like I had a shimmer of light in my mind that was fun to write down and you helped me make sense of my cluttered thoughts by casting a lumos spell in my head! :P From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 04:45:19 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:45:19 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88994 <>> Kathleen: > Oop is the first time another character, (Dumbledore), points out > that she is right about the house elves. Frost: But he points out that she is right in that they should all treat him better, not that all house-elves should be freed. There is a large difference. Especially since their "enslavement" seems to be, for a large part, voluntary. >I think the point of the > hats is not so much a plot device as character development. The hats > are showing that Hermione is developing a social conscience, which > makes her unpopular and pathetic to the other characters. I am sure > the House Elves will be freed by the end of the books due to her > efforts, but she will have to change tactic. Frost: The House-elves don't want to be freed. So they won't be, unless they do something so loathsome that the wizards and witches almost universally reject them, which is something I don't see happening. We find it hard to understand why someone that is intelligent would want to be subservient to another, but then we have to remember that which Hermione is forgetting. They aren't human, and their value systems are vastly different than ours are. Dobby is an odd one out, but then again, he was also very much abused by his "family." That is enough to make social freaks out of humans, and apparently its enough to make them out of house elves as well. Of course, Dobby might just have a different basic personality as well. The point is, Hermione is failing, and will fail, because she is trying to force her own value system on someone else. If anything, the hats would be a learning tool to help her understand that she needs to respect other peoples (beings, but I consider them people) values and points of view, even if yours disagrees. I think the best outcome we can hope for is elfish protection laws, so that absurd, and abusive punishments cannot be used against the elves, and other such things. Something so that the elves can be happy. And who knows, if they aren't forced to be what they don't want to be, maybe they'll take a day off too. ^_^ Frost From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 17 05:35:25 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:35:25 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phanbu" wrote: > > > big snip> I wrote this mostly in jest, but decided that there needs to be a > brother sent along with Ron. It doesn't matter which brother, but > someone has to be Aberforth. He can't just magically appear from > thin air. ...or can he? ;) > > - Phanbu Personally I like the idea of it being Percy who is sent back with Ron after being memory charmed into a stuper for doing so many stupid, stupid things. Who better to get into trouble with a goat. Just a thought. Sue From watercolor_stain at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 07:53:10 2004 From: watercolor_stain at yahoo.com (watercolor_stain) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:53:10 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88996 I've been lurking for quite sometime, just trying to catch up on my post reading... and I have accepted the fact that it is futile, so I will just jump in with both feet. Has there been any speculation that Hermione's cat Crookshanks is perhaps a secret Animungus? I put forth this idea in a conversational group, and was resoundly dismissed. But as I was re-reading the OoP, there were a couple of times when I wonder why JKR made Crookshanks the focus of a scene (i.e. Crookshanks notices the "I will not tell lies" scar) and Crookshanks was also the one who outed Wormtail PoA. In the HpaSS when Hermione first purchased Crookshanks she made mention that the shop keeper said that Crookshanks had been there "for ages" and the cat is described in such away one would think that he is much older...hmmm. I was also wondering why Crookshanks hasn't had major drama with Ms.Norris? I am sure that all of this has been bantied about before, and if that is the case could some of the more senior members perhaps direct me to the releveant post. Thank you~watercolorz From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 07:57:11 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:57:11 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88997 >Karen said >I think JKR chose the word HEART because it has so many possible >definitions beyond just LOVE. Maybe she wasn't trying to align each >house with the word, but just maybe, the word HEART ultimately sums >up what unites Hogwarts and what is needed to unite the wizarding >world. If Harry is a descendent of all the original founders of >Hogwarts, he could embody HEART in all of its definitions. Perhaps heart could be a combination of the four houses, as with the four chambers of the Heart. Each house supposedly represents a certain trait, perhaps the perfect heart/person will have an equal balance of the 4 traits. Andrew From watercolor_stain at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 08:29:41 2004 From: watercolor_stain at yahoo.com (watercolor_stain) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:29:41 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88998 Bobby: > David in message 88892 identifies the essential problem with the > hats: House Elves are not freed merely by contact with their > masters' clothes (or else why didn't Dobby free himself when he was > at the Malfoys?) or by intent (since Lucius did not intend to free > Dobby when he inadvertently threw him a sock). So how can > Hermione's hats work? > > Second, why hasn't Hermione noticed the problem? Why hasn't she > thought this thing to death the way she does everything else? Is > JKR using this for something in Book 6? That's not quite true is it, because the house elves were "insulted" and they refused to clean the Gryffindor tower for "fear" of finding one of the hats and being freed. Which is why Dobby during one scene is wearing them all, because Harry finds out that Dobby has been servicing Gryffindor solo. Dobby tells Harry that the houseelves don't care for Ms. Hermione for trying to "trick" them into freedom (or a loss of honor). I also seem to remember that hats were packaged as "gifts" (or with a note or something) to indicate for whom they were intended orginally. It would also stand to reason that being servants they handled clothes all the time doing daily chores. So it must be the "gifting" of clothes regardless of intent, and this gifting must be done by their master or mistress (which I would assume would be DD), but Hermione being a muggle born would assume muggle servant protacol and think in terms of servants being at the behest of whom they are currently serving (i.e. that those house-elves cleaning Gryffindor would be under the authority of the students whom they were serving). Like in the case of Sirus' house-elf Kreacher, who would say "I am bound to serve the House of Black", and that Sirus (even though he didn't approve of him) was his master. The others residing in the house could give Kreacher orders, that he was obliged to follow, but this didn't make them Kreacher's master. watercolorz From warhound at accessus.net Sat Jan 17 05:55:41 2004 From: warhound at accessus.net (Beverly Adams) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:55:41 -0000 Subject: Meaning of Sir Cadogen's name?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 88999 Received this from the Word-A-Day list. Doesn't seem to have much to do with Sir Cadogan, but if you go to the first website, it has a very interesting picture. cadogan (kuh-DUG-uhn) noun A lidless teapot, inspired by Chinese wine pots, that is filled from the bottom. [After William Cadogan, 1st Earl of Cadogan (1675-1726), who was said to be the first Englishman to own such a pot.] Pictures of cadogans: http://www.users.waitrose.com/~beryls/Pages/lw1_8.htm http://nemmelgebmurr.com/vintage/squirrel.html Beverly From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 17 12:33:17 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:33:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perkins and the meaning of warlock in the HP universe References: <20040117050525.9521.qmail@web80810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001901c3dcf6$1581cec0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89000 Sophierom: (An odd side note: practitioners of Wicca define warlocks not as male witches but as traitors! From my dim recollection of Perkins, he hardly seems like a traitor, and since there is also the position of Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, I seriously doubt that JKR uses the Wiccan definition of warlock {Anne} Also a side note on the use of the word 'Warlock' and a counter-claim. I am pagan...started out in the Wiccan camp...and throughout everything I was taught and learned, one of the things that was ingrained was that 'Warlock' is actaully not one of the words we use, except in so far as it's used in a standard dictionary....Male witches are still witches (although we will call each other Wiccan (IE Wise one)--'witch' is reserved for...um....(gives a crazy grin knowing how this will sound) you non-magical folk so that we don't have to give a dissertation on why we use the other words...or don't use them...). 'Bad' or "dark" witches (IE those stupid shits who practise the rites to gain something for themselves, most often at the exspense, or against the will, of another) we still call witches....we just try to avoid them--because usually they're also the crazy ones that think things like The 'Necronomicon' is a real book of magic (and will attempt to use the material within in thier own rites...)...that their favorite spirit guide is a demon (and that they have perfect control over said 'demon'), that they're the re-incarnation of Jesus-Buddah-Mohammed-Black Elk-Cleopatra, etc.... Anyhow, the point is 'Warlock' is not a term used by modern witches...it is actually a term made up by some 17th-18th century writer for one of his horror stories, and the term stuck in the common mind ever since. As for who it was...I'm drawing a blank right now... *I really miss my refernce books guys....anybody want to buy me a library....?* And, um, no...we don't have wands (Not in the Harry Potter sense anyway), and 'magic' isn't all flashy (although some of our rituals can be....^^). Magic, like any other form of 'prayer' to the God(s) takes time, intent, will, and a lot of patience....not to mention a lot of cooperation from your chosen diety....*winks* Of course, I'm sure there's another wicca on this board somewhere who will correct me on some things--we are also about as varied as any religion....and we all have our own style...:) Anne From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jan 17 12:33:05 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:33:05 -0000 Subject: Meaning of Sir Cadogen's name?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89001 Beverly wrote: > Received this from the Word-A-Day list. Doesn't seem to have much > to do with Sir Cadogan, but if you go to the first website, it > has a very interesting picture. > > cadogan > (kuh-DUG-uhn) noun > > A lidless teapot, inspired by Chinese wine pots, that is > filled from the bottom. Pip!Squeak: Well, I don't know. It could well be a subtle joke on JKR's part. Sir Cadogan (which I tend to pronounce 'kay-DUH-gawn', but I admit that isn't Standard English pronunciation), is completely mad. This is referenced a few times. In PoA, for example, Ron calls him 'completely mental'. And, in the UK, a common slang phrase for 'I am going INSANE' is: 'I'm a teapot. I'm a teapot!' So, yeah, I can see Cadogan=teapot as another one of JKR's name jokes. He *is* a teapot. Completely mental. Pip!Squeak From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 17 13:30:39 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:30:39 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89002 Anne writes that Hagrid has never lied thus far in the series. I'm pretty sure he was lying when Harry asked what he was doing in Knockturn Alley in CoS. His explanation that he was looking for a Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent doesn't sound convincing to me. Can't prove it, of course, just feel he had some other (not necessarily bad) reason for being there. Sylvia (who feels that we can't say, at this stage, of anyone that he never lies) From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 17 14:28:32 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:28:32 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous (part 2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Neri wrote: > As my test case I use the Ron=DD theory, which is discussed as part > of the knight2king theory (read all about it in > http://www.knight2king.net , hoping I got the link right this time). > JKR can save herself from paradox by devising just two histories. > This may be termed the Double Loop Ploy (DLP): Ron travels 130 years > into the past, Given all the clocks in the DoM, time and time-travel appear to be one of the phenomenon still under intensive investigation. As far as we have been shown so far, the distance that one can travel in time is limited. The Time-Turner - which requires one turn for every retrograde hour - would be a highly impractical means of traveling back more than a few days (just imagine Hermione trying to use her Turner to visit 1863!) Whether there are more powerful versions of the Time-Turner that would allow its operator to travel back through years and centuries remains to be seen. However, the fact that so much of early Wizard history is but dimly remembered semi-legend - e.g., the founding of Hogwarts, and the glaring lacuna in the biographies of Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin - would suggest that either wizardly historical researchers are uninterested in time-travel as a way of studying history, or that the magical technology to travel back further in time has yet to be invented. Still, the fact that time-travel has been used once in the HP narrative makes it likely that it will play a role in one of the future volumes. - CMC From chrissilein at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 14:50:25 2004 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (Lady Of The Pensieve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:50:25 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89004 Hi, ok, let us assume Regulus is still alive! Maybe Sirius is wrong about his younger brother, that he got killed by a Deatheater? Maybe people just think is dead? Maybe it?s a plot as it was with Sirius Black? Everybody thought Sirius Black was guilty! Then we found out he wasn?t! Maybe someone helped Regulus to vanish instead? Regulus wanted to leave Voldemort, that?s a fact! I mean Crookshnaks really could be Regulus Black. Regulus is Latin and means "Little Lion". In the third book Harry and Ron agreed Crookshans is definitly too little being a tiger, but too big being a tomcat. Sirius animagus was a gigantic bearlike dog. So why couldn?t Regulus not be a big, big tomcat??? PoA, UK Paperback, The Leaky Cauldron, page 68 Ron: " What is that ?" " It was either a very big cat or quite a small tiger," said Harry. He is intelligent, he sometimes acts like a human being, he really tried to help Sirius. He seemed to love Sirius. Ok, these are several thoughts I?ve got about Crookshanks. Bye --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "watercolor_stain" wrote: > I've been lurking for quite sometime, just trying to catch up on > my post reading... and I have accepted the fact that it is futile, so > I will just jump in with both feet. > > Has there been any speculation that Hermione's cat Crookshanks is > perhaps a secret Animungus? I put forth this idea in a conversational > group, and was resoundly dismissed. > > But as I was re-reading the OoP, there were a couple of times when I > wonder why JKR made Crookshanks the focus of a scene (i.e. > Crookshanks notices the "I will not tell lies" scar) and > Crookshanks was also the one who outed Wormtail PoA. > > In the HpaSS when Hermione first purchased Crookshanks she made > mention that the shop keeper said that Crookshanks had been > there "for ages" and the cat is described in such away one > would think that he is much older...hmmm. > > I was also wondering why Crookshanks hasn't had major drama with > Ms.Norris? > > I am sure that all of this has been bantied about before, and if that > is the case could some of the more senior members perhaps direct me > to the releveant post. > > Thank you~watercolorz From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 17 15:06:40 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:06:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3dd0b$82e413f0$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89005 > Perhaps heart could be a combination of the four houses, as with the > four chambers of the Heart. Each house supposedly represents a > certain trait, perhaps the perfect heart/person will have an equal > balance of the 4 traits. > > Andrew > Iggy here: Hmmm... This makes me wonder if it's not a form of...well... "harmonic love." That Voldemort will be defeated when Harry eventually finds a way to go beyond the rivalry of the houses and unite them in a common cause. To get them to recognize that there must be a unity there, and even a love of your fellow student that goes beyond the instilled prejudices or evolved divisions. This, in its way, can actually go along with the agape love concept... because once you get past your suppositions, your prejudices, and your competitiveness, then you are left with either agape love or fraternal love. (Which can be the other form of love that might be in there... love of one's fellow man/woman that eliminates prejudices... Which is another form Voldemort is unfamiliar with.) The four chambers/houses unite to form one pure heart. (*yeesh* Why do I feel like I'm writing the proposal for a "Captain Planet" spin-off?) Iggy McSnurd From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 17 15:33:39 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:33:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do the Dead Walk? References: Message-ID: <000601c3dd0f$47cef7e0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89006 {Sylvia} I'm pretty sure he was lying when Harry asked what he was doing in Knockturn Alley in CoS. His explanation that he was looking for a Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent doesn't sound convincing to me. Can't prove it, of course, just feel he had some other (not necessarily bad) reason for being there {Anne} Or else that was not the ONLY reason he was there.....after all, he did produce the repellent later in the book. The slug repellent might have even been the 'excuse' he was given by Dumbly to explain why he was there without revealing his 'other' chore. It's not a lie....not just the whole truth. And, since he wasn't telling ALL of the truth, he did his normal Hagrid number of falling over his own words to avoid letting slip about the second chore. And we all have seen Hagrid flustered when he's trying to keep from telling the whole truth (or tries hiding it). In this case, perhaps he remembered, just in time, that whatever chore number two was, it was something Dumbly told him under NO uncertian terms that he should relate to Harry and Co (another reason for seeming like he's hding something), and catches himself just in time (for once). He then relates what Dumbly TOLD him to relate to anyone who asks--which is that he;s looking for slug repellent--which is still the truth, just not the one he's hiding. So, Hagrid gets a second chore to help hide what he's doing for Dumbly...that way, it satisfies his habit for slipping up and telling the truth, as well as helps to short circuit his habit of telling the 'important' truth once he's asked... Anne From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 17 15:49:09 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:49:09 -0000 Subject: Is Snape protected by Fidelius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89007 Erin: >> But, from the way I understood the charm to work, if Dumbledore is Snape's secret keeper this time around, then Snape should have not been able to admit to Harry that he was spying. Only DD could do that. Unless Snape is his own secret keeper?<< I was supposing the original Secret Keeper charm is still in effect. The secret was revealed by Dumbledore in the Pensieve, so Harry knows it and can discuss it with Snape. The way I understand the charm, people who have been let in on a secret can discuss it amongst themselves--as they do at Grimmauld Place. It would have been deuced awkward if James, Lily and Harry were invisible to each other! Pippin From mariaalena at purdue.edu Sat Jan 17 15:53:59 2004 From: mariaalena at purdue.edu (maralenenok) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:53:59 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: More New Polls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89008 Hi, everyone! This is to announce the opening of two more polls: The Locked Door Poll and Carol's Head Boy poll. Again, we have the same request as last time: if you vote for "Other" in any of the polls, and post to specify your choice onlist, please say what the motivation behind your choice is. That'll make discussion more interesting. You can see all polls and vote in them in the Polls area of the site. And, as always, poll ideas are more than welcome at the hpforgrownups- owner@ yahoogroups.com. Vote away! Hebby Elf and Manya Elf, For the List Admin Team. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sat Jan 17 15:54:54 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Jan 2004 15:54:54 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1074354894.182.65826.w2@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89009 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: Just what *is* behind the locked door in the Department of Mysteries? Vote for your *best* guess. o Compassion o Courage o Faith o Heart o Hope o Humanity o Innocence o Love o Truth o Other (specify onlist, motivating answer) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171488 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sat Jan 17 15:55:24 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Jan 2004 15:55:24 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1074354924.137.35837.w84@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89010 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: Who do you think will be Head Boy in Harry's seventh year at Hogwarts? (Poll created by Carol.) o Harry o Ron o Draco o Ernie MacMillan o Neville o Other (specify onlist, giving motivation) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171489 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 17 16:20:48 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: thoughts about wands and broomsticks Message-ID: <20040117162048.15386.qmail@web25005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89011 I've been thinking about wands. In PS/SS when Harry's trying out wands Ollivander tells him "...you will never get such good results with another wizards wand." p.64, PS, UK ed. In this case, why would Percy have given his wand to Ron. Unless perhaps it had originally been passed on to Percy from someone else, and he didn't actually get his *own* wand till Ron started school. Maybe this is one of the reasons that Neville doesn't do well - he uses his Father's wand. Also, I assume that a muggle or a squib wouldn't be able to do anything with a wand, but a house elf apparently could (GoF, when Winky is accused of conjuring the Dark Mark at the World Cup). Can all magical creatures potentially use wands I wonder? Are wands mainly a conduit for magic, or do they contain a lot of their own magic? I thought that the MoM might keep track of underage magic through the wands, so if an underage witch/wizard's *wand* does magic they get in trouble. which might explain how the Weasley's can play quidditch and Harry's occassional uncontrolled magic isn't counted. This would mean that children in magical families could still do magic in the holidays if they used someone else's wand (I know there was a discussion about what happened to wands when the owner dies - was there a conclusion?) On to broomsticks: can only witches and wizards ride broomsticks? When Harry gets the firebolt (PoA) it automatically hovers at the right height for him. Can brooms sense whether someone is innately magical, in other words if Filch got on one would it just fall to the ground? My apologies if this has all been gone over already (and for the babblyness). Anneli ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From WFeuchter at msn.com Sat Jan 17 17:36:58 2004 From: WFeuchter at msn.com (hpoldfan) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:36:58 -0000 Subject: Ghosts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89012 Has there been any discussion on where the ghosts came from. In the muggle world in both fiction and in the few documented cases from real life ghosts haunt the place that they died. Does this mean that the ghosts were at Hogswarts as teachers or other staff. Or in the WW are ghosts more mobile? Bill From yswahl at stis.net Sat Jan 17 18:01:01 2004 From: yswahl at stis.net (samnanya) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:01:01 -0000 Subject: Whats in the locked room? I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS ????? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89013 Self Sacrifice - the willingness to put your life or well-being at risk for a worthy cause. I can't BELIEVE that this wasn't even a choice! The self sacrifice theme is rampant throughtout all five books. Clearly Lord Thingy has it not in the slightest, nor do the Slytherins (see Phineas Nigellus' comments that Slitherins are all self serving by nature), Harry Potter has it in great quantities, and if not for Lily's self sacrifice before page one is written the HP series would have been called Wizard Wars - Malfoys vs. Weasleys -- Toujours Pyew! and pass the Fudge. This post is meant to cause controversy or at least deep thought so fire away! Samnanya From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 18:36:50 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:36:50 -0000 Subject: Whats in the locked room? I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS ????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89014 "samnanya" wrote: > Self Sacrifice - the willingness to put your life or well-being at > risk for a worthy cause. > > I can't BELIEVE that this wasn't even a choice! The self sacrifice > theme is rampant throughtout all five books. Clearly Lord Thingy has > it not in the slightest, nor do the Slytherins (see Phineas Nigellus' > comments that Slitherins are all self serving by nature), Harry Potter > has it in great quantities, and if not for Lily's self sacrifice > before page one is written the HP series would have been called Erin: I'm totally with you on this one. I went to vote and had to refrain because the thing I was looking for wasn't there, and I wasn't even sure how to phrase it. Maybe it was left off on purpose in hopes of fueling a debate? ;-) We can only hope. Guess now that my choice has been listed I can go and vote for "other". And also, what the heck is "heart" and how is it different from love and all the other sappy choices listed? Erin From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sat Jan 17 19:17:40 2004 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:17:40 EST Subject: Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89015 I was just rereading GoF when someone caught my attention. At the QWC (or at least at the camp site) all the witches and wizards were required to wear muggle clothing. Now, there is no canon to give us any hint either way, but do you think the Malfoys also had to/did dress as muggles? Certainly it would be something they'd be opposed to doing, but wanting to keep a respectable face and not break the ministry's rules they would have to. Unless there is an alternative I am missing? Thoughts? ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jan 17 19:56:23 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:56:23 +0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: <3A213AB5-4927-11D8-B23A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89016 A few observations. When Harry and his merry crew invade the Ministry and find themselves in the ante-room of the Dept. of Mysteries, they are faced with "about a dozen" doors. Three they open. One is locked. One they entered by, leaving seven. That makes the odds 6:1 that the door to the room that DD whitters on about is the one that they couldn't open; and that assumes that THE room connects directly to the ante-room anyway. The door won't open to the 'Alohomora' spell, it doesn't respond to moderate force and it melts the blade of a *magical* penknife. DD claims that locked in a room is a force "more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature....the most mysterious of the many subjects..." Guess what? I think there's some of JKR's fun and games going on here. What did they find in the rooms? The veil in the Death Chamber ...... "more terrible than death" Brains in a tank........"than human intelligence" Studies of time..... "mysterious subjects" The Planetarium....."forces of nature" Hmm. I don't know what's in the room they couldn't open, or what it was that melted the knife. Probably a protective spell, not the mysterious force itself, if it was that powerful they'd have a hell of a job getting through the door to study it. But when I look at the list above and think of what subject is missing, I don't go for love, or loyalty or heart or any of those things. It's bigger and more mysterious than any of those. It's Life. It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice. "Ah!" you may say, "but Voldy wants to be immortal. How can Harry be the opposite?" Life is a lot more than avoiding death. Think about it; it's Life-force vs. Death Eaters. Kneasy From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 17 20:06:12 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:06:12 -0000 Subject: Whats in the locked room? I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS ????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89017 "samnanya" wrote: Self Sacrifice - the willingness to put your life or well-being at risk for a worthy cause. I can't BELIEVE that this wasn't even a choice! The self sacrifice theme is rampant throughtout all five books. Clearly Lord Thingy has it not in the slightest, nor do the Slytherins (see Phineas Nigellus' comments that Slitherins are all self serving by nature), Harry Potter has it in great quantities, and if not for Lily's self sacrifice before page one is written the HP series would have been called. Berit replies: I'd say self sacrifice is love put to action. Isn't it one of the many ways true love manifests itself? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 19:42:54 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:42:54 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpoldfan" wrote: > Has there been any discussion on where the ghosts came from. In the > muggle world in both fiction and in the few documented cases from > real life ghosts haunt the place that they died. > > Does this mean that the ghosts were at Hogswarts as teachers or > other staff. Or in the WW are ghosts more mobile? > > Bill Moaning Myrtle followed the one girl (can't remember her name) around, and even haunted her brother's wedding. The MoM made her return to hogwarts. This must mean that they can move about. Andrew From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Sat Jan 17 19:59:31 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:59:31 -0000 Subject: Lost wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > Don't forget that they were threatening to destroy Harry's wand after > a simple Underage Sorcery case.... > > "Ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence > shortly to destroy your wand" > > (OOTP "A Peck of Owls" p.30 UK edition) > > This reaction sounds a bit over the top quite frankly. Is this the > dreaded Umbridge in action again? Honey: Absolutely over the top. Umbridge was under the impression she had just expelled Harry from Hogwarts, he would never be trained as a wizard, and could never do magic legally, just as Hagrid was. As a result of Harry's "expulsion", she instructed Malfalda Hopkirk to inform Harry that his wand would be destroyed. Parenthetically, it seems to me that since Hagrid is now "cleared of all charges" and apparently eligible to complete his wizard training, he could go to Olivander's and buy a new wand completely legally. What do you think? Honey From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 20:22:29 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:22:29 -0000 Subject: Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > ... At the QWC ... all the witches and wizards were required to wear > muggle clothing. Now, there is no canon to give us any hint either > way, but do you think the Malfoys also had to/did dress as muggles? > > ...edited... > > Thoughts? > > ~Cassie~ bboy_mn: No; of course, that's just my opinion. In the Top Box the Bulgarian Minister was wearing 'splendid robes of black velvet and gold', so I conclude that people like the Ministers of Magic and the Malfoy's wore their normal closes, or perhaps dressed up in a wizardly fashion for the occassion. The Malfoys don't strike me as the 'camping out' type, they are used to luxury. So I suspect they traveled directly to the stadium at the last minute, and thereby, bypassed all the muggles. The only problem with this, Malfoys not camping, is explaining why Draco was still there in the middle of the night when the trouble started. I would speculate that after the Quidditch match, the Malfoy parent went off to socialize with promenent citizens of the wizard world, something young Draco would eventually find tediously boring. So eventually Draco wandered off by himself, perhaps to find some old school chums, while his parents went off to have a few drinks with their fellow Death Eaters. That left Draco on his own to find a safe spot with a good view when the trouble started, and while the lesser wizards scambled for cover. Still, even that leaves one issue unresolved, when his parents disapparated when they saw the Dark Mark, Draco was left alone in the woods with no way to get home. Hummm.... maybe the Malfoy's arrived by broomstick, that way Draco could fly his broom home. A lot of holes in this theory, no doubt. But in answer to your basic question, no, I don't think the Malfoys dressed as muggle, and I think they got away with it because the arrived at the location in some way and at a time that allowed them to avoid any muggle contact. Sorry I could be more help. bboy_mn From oppen at mycns.net Sat Jan 17 20:33:19 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:33:19 -0600 Subject: Ron as time-traveller---something that I don't think anybody thought of Message-ID: <014101c3dd39$25c8d920$43560043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 89021 Actually, I do like the "Ron Weasley, time-traveller, becomes Albus Dumbledore" theory (I disremember the acronym) but something I thought of does make it make a whole lot of sense. Like this: Ron Weasley, in Time-Track One, fights with and has to deal with an Evil Dark Wizard who makes V-mort look like a little old lady---and his _sidekick,_ one Thomas Marvolo Riddle. In a last desperate effort, he time-trips back, quite a long time, and takes the identity of one Albus Dumbledore, a recently-deceased wizard boy. (This would not be hard in Victorian times---no IDs to worry about) This creates Time-Track Two. As "Albus Dumbledore," he learns frantically, knowing that he has this menace to deal with in the future. He manages to scotch it---but part of the price is that Tom Riddle escapes. Maybe he de-magics the future Evil Dark Wizard in his cradle, or something...but has to let Tom slip. However, he doesn't think Tom, without his evil mentor, is much of a threat. In Time-Track One, he was sort of like Wormtail to our Voldemort...."yes, master, right away, master, kick me a few good ones so that we know your boots fit right, master..." Then, Tom comes to Hogwarts---and the only teacher that doesn't take to him is "Albus Dumbledore," nee Ron Weasley. He keeps a careful watch on Young Tom, but he's already changed history enough that Young Tom is able to open the Chamber of Secrets (which Ron Weasley/Albus Dumbledore had thought was mythical, along with the rest of the WW) and release the basilisk. While he can't bring Myrtle back to life, or persuade that idiot Armando Dippet to at least examine the body for signs of an Acromantula attack, he can and does keep a sharp eye on Young Tom, knowing what he was capable of on Time-Track One, but still underestimating him. And then Young Tom leaves Hogwarts, loaded down with scholastic honors, and despite his best efforts, Ron/Albus loses track of him...until he surfaces as Lord Voldemort, who, for all his evil, isn't _as_ evil or as much of a threat as the Evil Dark Wizard Ron was fighting in Time-Track One. (Confused, yet? I hope not---time-travel's a subject that gives _me_ headaches, when I start thinking about alternate time-tracks and alternate outcomes). So-o-o, Ron/Albus now has Lord Voldemort to deal with, and he learns quickly that even without his now-erased-from-history evil mentor, Voldemort's a formidable foe. While he knows _some_ things, he doesn't know everything, and he's changed history enough that his foreknowledge isn't much help any more. \ Hoping this will stir up some discussion, Eric From laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com Sat Jan 17 21:10:02 2004 From: laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com (laura) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:10:02 -0000 Subject: Whats in the locked room? I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS ????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samnanya" wrote: > Self Sacrifice - the willingness to put your life or well-being at > risk for a worthy cause. > > I can't BELIEVE that this wasn't even a choice! The self sacrifice > theme is rampant throughtout all five books. Clearly Lord Thingy has > it not in the slightest, nor do the Slytherins (see Phineas Nigellus' > comments that Slitherins are all self serving by nature), Harry Potter > has it in great quantities, and if not for Lily's self sacrifice > before page one is written the HP series would have been called > Samnanya now lola... I've come to the opinion that not being afraid of death has something to do with the locked room. From what I can remember of the top of my head (no HP books with me, just microbiology, and thet're not very interesting, are they Precious?)... Voldemort's biggest fear is death/dying/ something Beyond the Veil perhaps? When Voldemort is possessing Harry near the end of OotP, he thinks something along the lines of 'let the pain end,just let me die as nothing is worse than this...And I'll see Sirius again...' At this point, Voldemort leaves Harry, because he felt the powers that he so detests...not being afraid of death Anyway, this is entirely speculative because I have no idea why this would be so great or terrible that the room it was kept had to be locked, but I think it may have something to do somewhere... Lola...desperately trying to avoid studying for Monday's microbiology exam... From laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com Sat Jan 17 21:13:27 2004 From: laura.carberry at aintitcoolmail.com (laura) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:13:27 -0000 Subject: Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89023 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > > ... At the QWC ... all the witches and wizards were required to wear > > muggle clothing. Now, there is no canon to give us any hint either > > way, but do you think the Malfoys also had to/did dress as muggles? > > > > ...edited... > > > > Thoughts? > > > > ~Cassie~ > > > > bboy_mn: > > No; of course, that's just my opinion. In the Top Box the Bulgarian > Minister was wearing 'splendid robes of black velvet and gold', so I > conclude that people like the Ministers of Magic and the Malfoy's wore > their normal closes, or perhaps dressed up in a wizardly fashion for > the occassion. > > The Malfoys don't strike me as the 'camping out' type, they are used > to luxury. So I suspect they traveled directly to the stadium at the > last minute, and thereby, bypassed all the muggles. > > The only problem with this, Malfoys not camping, is explaining why > Draco was still there in the middle of the night when the trouble > started. I would speculate that after the Quidditch match, the Malfoy > parent went off to socialize with promenent citizens of the wizard > world, something young Draco would eventually find tediously boring. > So eventually Draco wandered off by himself, perhaps to find some old > school chums, while his parents went off to have a few drinks with > their fellow Death Eaters. > bboy_mn I can totally imagine Draco having a hugely luxurious Winnebago-type thing, and having all his Slytherin chums around after the QWC to drink whatever the Wizarding equivalent of Port is... lola xxx From helen at odegard.com Sat Jan 17 21:33:34 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:33:34 -0800 Subject: what does Ron (not) know - resolving the unpleasant alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c3dd41$90494700$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89024 Helen (LizardLaugh) here, throwing out some ideas regarding Ron's knowledge (or lack thereof) and the two unpleasant alternatives with regards to Time Travel proposed by Neri (whose first essay, I think I may have missed). It is difficult for me to follow HP4GU, so if I ask questions you have already answered or bring up points already covered, please have mercy :) Ok, I understand you (Neri) have some issues with Ron/DD knowing the past, because he either has to sit back and let things happen (if he can change it) or his not being able to change things, no matter what he does, subverts the theme of choice. Well... I agree, or did agree at one point, but I thought Troell's essay did a decent job of explaining how the question of free will does still work in an immutable past. What happens in the past happens, but it happens as a product of free will. The outcomes are still a product of choices; the choices are just made out of order. The past is a product of decisions by the future self when time travel is involved. Soft determinism? I don't know. And I don't think we can be certain precisely what model of time travel JKR is using. Our suggestion in Knight2King was that she might be using something in the middle, though I admit that Troell's model is certainly the most tidy and given what we see in PoA, probably the most likely. Now, does Ron/DD know he can't change the past if he can't? I don't think he does, mainly because of what Hermione says about wizards changing time and it being dangerous and all of that. I think Ron probably did *try* to change things he knew about, to some degree. He doesn't trust Tom Riddle from the beginning, for one... would a different approach, reaching out to Tom, have changed things? Why not try to prevent Tom Riddle's birth? Well, maybe he did, we don't know. Ron, again, doesn't know all of the details. He knows Tom Riddle is Voldemort, but he doesn't know who his parents are. Riddle isn't all THAT uncommon a name, and Tom is even more common. Harry's got the first name of a (probably wizard) grandfather, but no maiden name for TMR's mom, and that's it. Ron (as far as we know) doesn't even know that. Doesn't know the town they live in... Ron knows even less than Harry. He just knows Tom Riddle, he doesn't even know that Tom is named after his dad (as far as we know)... so all that aside, what if he is able to find Tom as a baby/child, does he kill him? It's the old 'do you kill Hitler as a baby?' chestnut. People debate that still. And anyway... remember this question has already been brought up in the story by JKR in the Time Room when the Death Eater gets turned into a baby -- 'You can't hurt a baby!', Hermione says... as JKR's author avatar, Hermione has answered that question for us -- you can't kill a baby, you can't kill baby!Hitler, you can't kill Tom Riddle. It's wrong (whether or not *we* think it is wrong is beside the point). Ron/Dumbledore, JKR's OTHER author avatar, her authorial voice, won't do it. (for more explanation on JKR's own place in the story... see the interview in the CoS DVD and various other interviews when asked about Hermione) Then, there is the whole Trelawney business. DD's not too keen on bringing Trelawney to the school, and Ron is seen saying, quite explicitly, that he thinks that DD probably would want to get rid of Trelawney and that Divination is a crock of crap anyway. I wouldn't put it past Ron/DD to try to keep her out or get rid of Divination as a subject. Remember, that while we are talking about Dumbledore, we are also talking about RON. Now, on re-reading PoA, I discovered something we got very, very wrong in the Ron=DD essay on Knight2King -- Ron doesn't know about Trelawney's Second Prophecy. Harry never had a chance to tell him. The explanation is interrupted in classic JKR fashion by the Hagrid/Buckbeak fiasco. It's never referred to again, aside from where Harry tells Dumbledore about it (but then it's too late, right?). Ron doesn't also (so far) know anything substantial about the First Prophecy except that there is a Prophecy. That's it. He doesn't know who made it, and let's face it, would Ron even suspect it came from Trelawney given his present knowledge of her? He doesn't know what it is about. He doesn't know that Dumbledore heard it. So, Ron, assuming Harry never tells him about the two Prophecies, will be sent back in time not knowing anything about the Second Prophecy and only that the First Prophecy exists. Once hearing Trelawney make the First Prophecy, he has to bring her to the school to protect her and the knowledge. Does he yet know that *this* was the Prophecy Voldemort was after in fifth year? Yes, he probably does make that connection, assuming one thing... he keeps all his memories. He doesn't know if (or when) Dumbledore ever told Harry about the First Prophecy, so he has to wing it'. And he does in what I think is a believable way, considering Harry's own reasons for not telling Ron and Hermione about the Prophecy in the first place. If Dumbledore is Ron, he loves Harry from the beginning, and he doesn't want to hurt him any more than he already knows he has to. He has already had to make him live with the Dursleys, KNOWING at least in part, what it would do to Harry. A tangent... the lines regarding this issue in OotP are quite interesting with Ron=DD in mind... DD said he knew what living with the Dursleys would do to Harry, just not the extent. As Ron, he probably wasn't quite aware of the damage, and doesn't see the full extent until Harry returns to him. In any event, he had no choice. It was the only way to keep Harry alive. Back to Ron and what he doesn't know... Ron actually knows very, very little and has to 'wing it' quite a bit, which also makes me lean towards the immutable timeline as Troell suggested. If he's lucky, he'll have one of those Dumbledore Chocolate Frog cards he's always getting in his back pocket when he goes back. Does this mean Ron has no choice? I think he does have choice, but the present we see is the product of Ron's choices that have already been made. He knows so little of what Dumbledore actually does, that everything still is a choice from his POV. So... while the two uncomfortable alternatives you put out have always bugged me about the Ron=DD theory (despite being a huge fan of the concept from the moment I heard about it), I've now changed my mind. I'm totally fine with the immutable past. Ron can't change the past because he has MADE the past. His choices have created the present we see. My best guess is that Ron/DD doesn't even himself fully understand Time Travel, as it is something studied in the DoM. So, I don't see it in quite the tragic light you do. I do see Ron/DD as a tragic figure, but for different reasons -- notably, the issue of family and love and never realizing his true wealth until it is too late. Ron wants be great and noticed and wealthy and a hero and stand out... and he gets that, everything he wanted and more. He becomes Dumbledore, this great wizard he idolizes, the greatest wizard of the age... yet (and I get all teary eyed just thinking about it) as an old man, after achieving all of the dreams he had for himself as a boy, he sees himself holding a pair of woolen socks in the Mirror of Erised. What do you want to bet those socks are maroon? Ok, back on topic... ixchelmala has been real keen on the idea of the Veil being the time travel device and it erasing memories in whole or in part (there is also the accompanying Sirius=Aberforth theory, but... heh, I am not convinced of that just yet). I think Veil=time machine and Time Travel=memory erasure are too big a leap to make (together OR apart). I also think having Ron/DD lose all his memories makes the whole idea of them being the same person completely pointless (and also contradictory, because DD does indeed know stuff). HOWEVER... we do have an incident that makes me think Ron/DD may have had *some* memory erasure. That is, of course, the attack by the brain and the measures taken to cure it -- Ubbly's Oblivious Unction. Oblivious? Obliviate? Now THAT is interesting. Could Ron have some of his recent memories clouded? Like, maybe, some of the events of GoF and OotP? Dumbledore makes great use of the Pensieve... watching things over and over. Trying to remember? Trying to piece together what he has seen as Dumbledore in *his* recent past to make up for some things that got a little obscured with the brain attack? So, in the end... Ron knows very little. From his POV, everything is a choice. He doesn't know all of the answers, and he may very well have at least attempted to change the past with the knowledge he had. He may have also lost his memory to some degree, though not to a large degree. That, coupled with the idea that the past *is* Ron's future and his choices lead to the present we see... makes the immutable past model, well, not so deterministic as it first seems. Helen, who hopes some of this made sense From rayheuer3 at aol.com Sat Jan 17 21:55:09 2004 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:55:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89025 IAmLordCassandra at aol.com writes: >Certainly it would be something they'd be opposed to doing, but wanting to >keep a respectable face and not break the ministry's rules they would have to. >Unless there is an alternative I am missing? The Malfoys don't strike me as the "camp out" type. They probably portkeyed to a location near the stadium shortly before gametime and portkeyed home the same way. IIRC, they arrived later than the others. -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 17 21:42:05 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:42:05 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups In-Reply-To: <1074354894.182.65826.w2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > HPforGrownups group: > > Just what *is* behind the locked door > in the Department of Mysteries? Vote > for your *best* guess. > > snip My best guess is that it is all of the above. None of them stands alone. Everything on the list relys on, or is enhanced by the others. IOW, true love is always courageous as is the truth and truth motivated by love and sacrafice is the most courageous of all. I think now, and have always thought, that love was too simple an answer, Voldemort has seen love before, even possessed a loving person in the form of Ginny and probably many, many others. If the answer is only love, or even sacraficial love, why was he not repelled by Ginny when she thought of her parents or brothers or even Harry. I think the power in the room is the power of Good. An all incompassing power of what is right in the world and about people in general. When Harry thought of Serius at the end of OotP it was not only the love in his heart but the profound sense of loss and longing that engulfed him as he thought of Serius' death. It would have been connected to the courage it took to go after him when he was in trouble, the love Harry had for Serius and for his parents and all of the people who helped him to do what he thought was right on that particular day. I hope this is not too much of a ramble and that it makes sense. Love does not stand alone, it is upheld and sustained by all of the things on the list. All of these things in combination confronted with evil and weilding their combined power inside one person or a group of people could indeed be terrible and wonderful. Sue From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 17 21:18:44 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:18:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89027 I find the Ron!DD theory fascinating and have been following the thread since it began. In what I have read, no one has referenced the watch that DD wears. JKR has refered to it at least once (it seems to me) in every book. Whether Ron is Dumbledore or not, there is something going on with time and Dumbledore has the answer sitting on his wrist. By the way, I am a 40ish mother of two who sneaks on the computer when no one is looking and I am ever so grateful to find such a great "place" to go! Sue From belijako at online.no Sat Jan 17 22:43:24 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:43:24 -0000 Subject: Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89028 bboy_mn wrote: The only problem with this, Malfoys not camping, is explaining why > Draco was still there in the middle of the night when the trouble > started. I would speculate that after the Quidditch match, the Malfoy > parent went off to socialize with promenent citizens of the wizard > world, something young Draco would eventually find tediously boring. > So eventually Draco wandered off by himself, perhaps to find some old > school chums, while his parents went off to have a few drinks with > their fellow Death Eaters. > That left Draco on his own to find a safe spot with a good view when > the trouble started, and while the lesser wizards scambled for cover. Still, even that leaves one issue unresolved, when his parents > disapparated when they saw the Dark Mark, Draco was left alone in the woods with no way to get home. Hummm.... maybe the Malfoy's arrived by broomstick, that way Draco could fly his broom home. Berit replies: Quote: "It [the Dark Mark] scared the Death Eaters away the moment they saw it. They all Disapparated before we'd got near enough to unmask any of them." (GoF p. 127 UK Ed). I don't think the DE's Disapparated off the grounds, all the way to their homes. What would that have looked like? Despite the fact that there were tens of thousands of wizards at the campsite, someone would surely notice if a group of people about the same numbers as the ones having had fun on the Muggles' behalf had disappeared from the area. The sudden absence of an important and well known man like Lucius Malfoy, for instance, would most certainly have raised suspicions. The smart thing for the DE's to do would be to Disapparate from the scene of the crime and then Apparate unnoticed somewhere else in the vicinity; for instance inside their own luxurious tents, or a secluded place in the woods :-) That way they could easily act "normal", and pretend to have been hiding in their tents or in the woods. That way there would be no need for the Malfoys to leave their son Draco behind; an act which would have been HIGHLY suspicious I believe, no matter whether Draco had a broom or not to fly off with on his own (and Narcissa would probably have refused to leave darling Draco behind anyway :-) No, the easiest and most effective way to get away successfully is to mingle with the crowd, not to draw attention to yourself by Disapparate in a panic to a completely different place... My two knuts :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From aorta47 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 18:58:58 2004 From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (mmm skyscraper) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:58:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... Message-ID: <20040117185858.87057.qmail@web11807.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89029 Remember the Kwikspell letter: 'Warlock D.J. Prod of Didsbury' (CoS p.127 American pb). This leads me to believe that Warlock is a term of respect perhaps like Mister in the RW. Mark __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 19:53:36 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:53:36 -0000 Subject: Whats in the locked room? I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS ????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89030 Erin: >And also, what the heck is "heart" and how is it different from love >and all the other sappy choices listed? The first thing to come to my mind, when ever I hear 'heart' is courage. Andrew From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Sat Jan 17 20:24:51 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:24:51 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "watercolor_stain" wrote: > Has there been any speculation that Hermione's cat Crookshanks is > perhaps a secret Animungus? I put forth this idea in a conversational > group, and was resoundly dismissed. > > But as I was re-reading the OoP, there were a couple of times when I > wonder why JKR made Crookshanks the focus of a scene (i.e. > Crookshanks notices the "I will not tell lies" scar) and > Crookshanks was also the one who outed Wormtail PoA. > > In the HpaSS when Hermione first purchased Crookshanks she made > mention that the shop keeper said that Crookshanks had been > there "for ages" and the cat is described in such away one > would think that he is much older...hmmm. > Thank you~watercolorz I am afraid I am unable to locate the old posts on this subject, but I think it was suggested that Crookshanks might be part Kneazle. FB: "A small catlike creature with flecked, speckled, or spotted fur, outsize ears, and a tail like a lion's, the Kneazle is intelligent, independent, and occasionally aggressive, though if it takes a liking to a witch or wizard, it makes an excellent pet. The Kneazle has an uncanny ability to detect unsavoury or suspicious characters and can be relied upon to guide its owner safely home if they are lost. Kneazles ... can interbreed with cats." It seems that Kneazles are different enough from cats in appearance that Hermione or the shop owner would have known if he were a full blooded Kneazle, but it is possible that he is part Kneazle, since JKR specifically points out the possibility of interbreeding. Crookshanks seems to be the first to recognize that Scabbers is other than an ordinary rat and Sirius is other than an ordinary dog. I find no evidence of exceptional guiding abilities, but the rest of the description is a bit suggestive. I don't think there is any suggestion in canon that an animagus is able to detect other animagi in animal form any better than any other wizard. The fact that Crookshanks was suspicious of Scabbers first would be more suggestive that he is part Kneazle than that he is an animagus in animal form. Not really strong evidence either way though, I think, and I could be convinced of any outlandish theory if you have a funny enough story to present it. (Please?) Honey From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jan 17 20:43:45 2004 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:43:45 -0000 Subject: Jones and Jones and Mark Evans Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89032 I posted this on Thursday 15 Jan, but it seems to have got lost in cyberspace. If it turns up as a double post I apologise in advance. In chapter 3 of OOP the reader meets an Order member called Hestia Jones. To be honest, as she didn't have much of a part I'd forgotten all about her. Then I was looking at the screen caps of JKR's student list and I spotted Megan Jones. I then wondered if there was a connection. I thought I'd come up with a new theory. But then I checked Yahoo and fan fiction alley and spotted one post raising this possibility. (They suggested too that she could be the weakest link in the Order because she's underdeveloped and could be leant on to protect Megan.) But I don't think any link has been discussed much. It does seem that they could be related. Megan Jones is down as a half blood Hufflepuff. Hestia Jones, from her name, and the fact that she was laughing at a potato peeler, is presumably a pureblood. Perhaps she's Megan's mother. (BTW Hestia was the Greek goddess of the home and hearth. That makes her sound friendly and home-loving. It also made me wonder if she has something to do with the Floo network, but that might be too similar to Marietta's mother.) I'm sure that child readers and non-fan adult readers won't have paid much attention to Hestia Jones. I'm convinced that they don't know that a character called Megan Jones has been planned. Funnily enough, the possible Jones and Jones relationship made me wonder about Mark Evans. Most fans are speculating about if he's related to Lily or not. Perhaps he is a red herring after all. Maybe JKR wants Harry and the reader to think he's a relation, and then she will demonstrate that he is not. Then, if two characters with the same surname are mentioned in canon, the reader will go, huh, won't fall for that one again, and this time they will be related. JoTwo From warhound at accessus.net Sat Jan 17 21:56:57 2004 From: warhound at accessus.net (Beverly Adams) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:56:57 -0000 Subject: Meaning of Sir Cadogen's name?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > Beverly wrote about possible word play with Sir Cadogan's name: > > cadogan > > (kuh-DUG-uhn) noun > > > > A lidless teapot, inspired by Chinese wine pots, that is > > filled from the bottom. > > > Then Pip!Squeak replied: > > Well, I don't know. It could well be a subtle joke on JKR's part. > > In PoA, for example, Ron calls > him 'completely mental'. > > And, in the UK, a common slang phrase for 'I am going INSANE' is: > > 'I'm a teapot. I'm a teapot!' > Beverly asks: Could this be because of the steam coming out or something? Making it look like it's loosing something or going nuts? _Pip!Squeak also said: Sir Cadogan (which I tend to pronounce 'kay-DUH-gawn', but I admit > that isn't Standard English pronunciation Beverly adds: I listen to the HP tapes by Jim Dale. He pronounces the knight's name same as above (kuh-DUG-un) so I was pleased to know the pronunciation's the same as the teapot. BTW, Jim Dale changed the pronunciation of Voldemort's and Hermione's names in the OotP tape. He previously left the "t" sound off Voldy's name and Hermione's name is now pronounced with all of the syllables ("Her-my-uh-nee" as opposed to "Her-my-nee"). I wonder if JKR called to correct him. :D From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sat Jan 17 23:19:42 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:19:42 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "watercolor_stain" wrote: > Bobby: > > > David in message 88892 identifies the essential problem with the > > hats: House Elves are not freed merely by contact with their > > masters' clothes (or else why didn't Dobby free himself when he was > > at the Malfoys?) or by intent (since Lucius did not intend to free > > Dobby when he inadvertently threw him a sock). So how can > > Hermione's hats work? >watercolourstain writes : > That's not quite true is it, because the house elves were "insulted" > and they refused to clean the Gryffindor tower for "fear" of finding > one of the hats and being freed. snip AmanitaMuscaria now: No, the houseelves aren't frightened by the clothes, they are insulted, though. (UK OotP pg.341-2) snip > I also > seem to remember that hats were packaged as "gifts" (or with a note > or something) to indicate for whom they were intended orginally. AmanitaMuscaria here: Not gifts, Hermione was covering the hats with screwed-up bits of parchment and such, to entrap the elves. The gift was the patchwork quilt Hermione gave to Kreacher. (UK OotP pgs 230- 1, 444-5) > Like in the case of Sirus' house-elf Kreacher, who would say "I am > bound to serve the House of Black", and that Sirus (even though he > didn't approve of him) was his master. The others residing in the > house could give Kreacher orders, that he was obliged to follow, but > this didn't make them Kreacher's master. > > watercolorz AmanitaMuscaria here: The houseelves' loyalty does seem odd - we've got two houseelves who are rebels: Dobby, I am presuming, wasn't sent to try to keep Harry from going to Hogwarts in CoS; and Kreacher, who leaves Grimmauld Place to plot with Narcissa, admittedly an ex-Black who's more to his way of mind. Winky seems to not be able to shake the charm that binds her to the Crouches, even having been given clothes. So we're given the extremes of elfdom, and the median (elves at Hogwarts). Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 17 23:25:19 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:25:19 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89035 Kneasy: >>Hey! Steady on! Don't do anything rash.It wasn't my intention to scupper an entire field of speculation; seemingly fertile ground for discussion, disagreement, recrimination and life-long emnity. That would eliminate half the fun. My argument was very definitely centred on the Snape!Vampire heresy. Other un-dead are a another thing entirely, IMO. True, we have no direct evidence, but when has that ever stopped the firm declaration of a perverse poster?<< Never. And so I firmly and perversely declare, in the spirit of good fun and with all due respect for other points of view , my definition of the Potterverse vampire: a) Vampires exist in the WW (mentioned in all five books and both school books) b) It is quite possible, though unconfirmed, that vampires are no more dead than thestrals -- there many things which resemble re-animated corpses in the Potterverse but nothing AFAIK that actually is one (all five books and both school books) c) They *look* dead (PoA) d) They like the taste of blood (PoA) e) They avoid garlic (PS/SS, PoA) f) They can ingest other food and drink (CoS,OOP) g) Their skin is white and waxy (PoA) h) There may be something odd about their eyes (PoA) i) Most wizards are afraid of them and many hate them (GoF) j) Some vampires are outlaws, hunted and slain by the Ministry of Magic (GoF) k) They are hard to kill (GoF) l) They are associated with bats (QTTA) m) They are associated with The Black Forest, Transylvania, and Minsk (PS/SS, QTTA, OOP) n) They are intelligent enough to take a role in magical government (FBAWTFT) o) They can control their brutal instincts (FBAWTFT) p) They are non-wizarding (GoF) q) They are part-human (GoF) Kneasy: > Vampires exist in the WW. How they are defined is unknown, but they must bear some sort of relationship to traditional legend.< As usual, it's hard to know what information we can trust. How much of the above applies to "traditional" vampires I will leave to students of the same. Kneasy: >> If they don't, why call them vampires? A un-undead beast who preys on flesh and blood would be an ogre (no mention so far), so the term 'vampire' must have some significance.<< First, two mentions of ogres: one in FBAWTFT under the Ghoul, which is said to resemble one, and in PoA--ch.8 "We *think* we saw an ogre,honestly;they get all sorts at The Three Broomsticks ." Again, no indication that either is unDead. I can't imagine Ron being comfortable anywhere that humans were likely to be on the menu. Second, they're called Vampires, because, um, they're vampires -- but not vampires as we know them. Just like Elves are elves (the ones from the Brothers Grimm, not Tolkien's version) who've been given the powers and limitations of Aladdin's genie, and Ghouls are ghouls but live on moths and spiders. And Wizards are wizards but may pass their powers to their children, quite unlike traditional enchanters who tend to lose their powers upon succumbing to carnal lust. Traditional wizards serve a clan--in the Potterverse they are a clan themselves. The idea that Potterverse vampires can't control their urge to drink blood or that they are possessed corpses is, IMO, pure slander. Kneasy: > >Additionally, there is Pavarti's boggert. An animated mummy. Why should she fear an imaginary being more than a whole beastiary of 'real' monsters? Note that the rest of the class seemed to accept it as an acceptable and reasonable cause of terror. And if they didn't exist I'm sure Hermione would have had something scathing to say.<< No--because Hermione's own worst fear isn't realistic either. And she knows it. Kneasy: > But I live in hope. Ah! The dark of the moon; that piquant graveyard smell; maggot-ridden flesh; the trail of digits and limbs surplus to requirements as a monstrous being lurches towards an unsuspecting victim! > > Surely JKR won't deny us a glimpse into the necropolis?<< I think we have glimpsed it, and JKR's necropolis is a friendly place, by and large. Werewolves control their affliction with a potion. Familiar voices whisper from beyond the veil. Ghosts glide in formation. The Bloody Baron is ghastly-looking but harmless AFAWK. Peeves is a nuisance but not scary. The departed smile and wave at Harry from photograph albums and a magical mirror. Their echoes spring from wands and portraits to offer friendly advice. By far the most terrifying thing he meets in the graveyard is a living man. Pippin From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 23:30:10 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:30:10 -0000 Subject: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... In-Reply-To: <20040117185858.87057.qmail@web11807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, mmm skyscraper wrote: > Remember the Kwikspell letter: > > 'Warlock D.J. Prod of Didsbury' (CoS p.127 American > pb). This leads me to believe that Warlock is a term > of respect perhaps like Mister in the RW. > > Mark bboy_mn: Well, I certainly can't say you are wrong, but at the same time, I'm not so sure you are right. Let's look at Harry's two encounters with Warlocks. - in the Leaky Cauldron, Harry sees "wild-looking warlocks". - In the Three Broomsticks, Harry sees a "bunch of rowdy warlocks". 'Wild-looking' and 'rowdy', and my sense is that Harry knows a warlock when he sees one. So, it has to be a little more than a term of respect. Also, the wizard world has two unique organizations- - - International Confederation of Wizards (SS4, GF17) - - International Federation of Warlocks (PA3) impying that Warlocks are a distinct entity. I'm not saying my version is right either. However, the best I've been able to come up with is that it is a regional/cultural thing. For example, wizards being from Western Europe and Warlocks being from Eastern Europe. That would mean that while Harry was a wizard, Viktor Krum would refer to himself as a warlock. Although, in very general conversation the two terms might be interchangable. In more precise and formal discussions, they are distinct entities. I speculate that there could be enough of a difference in physical appearance, like dark hair, olive skin, accent, certain facial features, clothing style, etc... that most warlocks could be distinguished on sight. This seems to be the best solution I could come up with unless we take it to the extreme and say that warlocks are a different species of beings altogether, and are therefore identifiable by unique physical characteristics. As an extreme example, maybe warlocks look like Kingons. I'm not saying they do, I'm just using that to illustrate my point. In the end, I don't think we have enough information, to positively make the distinction. But the evidences seems to indicate that warlock are identifiable on sight by most reasonably knowledgable people, and that they are a distinctly identifiable group, although, exactly 'what' identifies them remains a mystery. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 17 23:54:01 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:54:01 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats -Elves Clean Clothes - Quote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "watercolor_stain" > wrote: > >watercolourstain writes : > > That's not quite true is it, because the house elves were > > "insulted" and they refused to clean the Gryffindor tower for > > "fear" of finding one of the hats and being freed. snip > > AmanitaMuscaria now: > > No, the houseelves aren't frightened by the clothes, they are > insulted, though. (UK OotP pg.341-2) > > ...edited... > > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria bboy_mn: Just going to jump into the conversation here with a quote from Goblet of Fire- - - - Quote - Gof Am Ed HB pg 677 - - - Crouch!Moody speaks to Harry... "You told me at the Yule Ball a house-elf called Dobby had given you a Christmas present. I called the elf to the staffroom to collect some robes for cleaning. ...etc..." - - -end quote- - - Now one could argue that Dobby was already free, so he could come and collect the robes without worry of freeing him again. But I don't think Fake!Moody had that much knowledge about Dobby. To him, Dobby was just another elf. But that didn't stop him from calling Dobby to collect some robes for cleaning. I still stand by the postion, that Hermione was and is hopelessly misguided. She was struck with an impulsive idea that she didn't think through. If there is one word that describes Hermione's efforts on behalf of the house-elves it is 'misguided'. What do you think all the elves would do if they were suddenly free? I can /almost/ guarantee you that the would continue to serve the House to whom they were previously attached, or if force, would go find a new family to serve. The elves really are happy with what they do, and take pride in having served generations of a family with generations of there own elfin family. The problem is that wizards exploit the good nature of elves, and feel free to abuse and mistreat them because they know the elves are too honorable to go back on their commitment to the family. What has to happen, is that some law, policy, or new attitude has to be created to protect the elves from gross exploitation and abuse. Something that forces wizards to enter into this agreement of servitude with the same sense of honor, loyalty, and respect that the elves bring to it. The elves are fine, it's the wizards who need to be fixed. Just a thought. bboy_mn From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 00:47:52 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:47:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89038 Sue Wrote: In what I have read, no one has referenced the watch that DD wears. JKR has refered to it at least once (it seems to me) in every book. Whether Ron is Dumbledore or not, there is something going on with time and Dumbledore has the answer sitting on his wrist. vmonte replies: You know Sue what a great post! I completely forgot about DD's watch. I think that may be the answer to how DD time travels. The watch is different, with multiple hands, right! I wonder if this is how he keeps track of all the different times he has gone back in time. Perhaps he has been skipping around. Doing a few years here and a few years there. I need to find out all the different times his watch was mentioned in the books. What was going on at the time the watch was mentioned? Did DD recently have to go back in time? vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 01:08:05 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:08:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89039 Sue Wrote: In what I have read, no one has referenced the watch that DD wears. JKR has refered to it at least once (it seems to me) in every book. Whether Ron is Dumbledore or not, there is something going on with time and Dumbledore has the answer sitting on his wrist. vmonte replies: You know Sue what a great post! I completely forgot about DD's watch. I think that may be the answer to how DD time travels. The watch is different, with multiple hands, right! I wonder if this is how he keeps track of all the different times he has gone back in time. Perhaps he has been skipping around. Doing a few years here and a few years there. I need to find out all the different times his watch was mentioned in the books. What was going on at the time the watch was mentioned? Did DD recently have to go back in time? vmonte again: Did DD recently have to go back in time to correct an error? How about Aberforth? Aberforth is in Moody's photograph. Supposedly that is the only time Aberforth was ever seen (at least by Moody). DD may have needed to come back twice to correct a mistake? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 01:29:19 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:29:19 -0000 Subject: Ron as time-traveller---something that I don't think anybody thought of In-Reply-To: <014101c3dd39$25c8d920$43560043@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89040 Eric wrote: > Actually, I do like the "Ron Weasley, time-traveller, becomes Albus > Dumbledore" theory (I disremember the acronym) but something I thought of > does make it make a whole lot of sense. > > Like this: Ron Weasley, in Time-Track One, fights with and has to deal with > an Evil Dark Wizard who makes V-mort look like a little old lady--- and his > _sidekick,_ one Thomas Marvolo Riddle. In a last desperate effort, he > time-trips back, quite a long time, and takes the identity of one Albus > Dumbledore, a recently-deceased wizard boy. (This would not be hard in > Victorian times---no IDs to worry about) This creates Time-Track Two. > > As "Albus Dumbledore," he learns frantically, knowing that he has this > menace to deal with in the future. He manages to scotch it---but part of > the price is that Tom Riddle escapes. Maybe he de-magics the future Evil > Dark Wizard in his cradle, or something...but has to let Tom slip. However, > he doesn't think Tom, without his evil mentor, is much of a threat. In > Time-Track One, he was sort of like Wormtail to our Voldemort...."yes, > master, right away, master, kick me a few good ones so that we know your > boots fit right, master..." > > Then, Tom comes to Hogwarts---and the only teacher that doesn't take to him > is "Albus Dumbledore," nee Ron Weasley. He keeps a careful watch on Young > Tom, but he's already changed history enough that Young Tom is able to open > the Chamber of Secrets (which Ron Weasley/Albus Dumbledore had thought was > mythical, along with the rest of the WW) and release the basilisk. While he > can't bring Myrtle back to life, or persuade that idiot Armando Dippet to at > least examine the body for signs of an Acromantula attack, he can and does > keep a sharp eye on Young Tom, knowing what he was capable of on Time-Track > One, but still underestimating him. And then Young Tom leaves Hogwarts, > loaded down with scholastic honors, and despite his best efforts, Ron/Albus > loses track of him...until he surfaces as Lord Voldemort, who, for all his > evil, isn't _as_ evil or as much of a threat as the Evil Dark Wizard Ron was > fighting in Time-Track One. (Confused, yet? I hope not---time- travel's a > subject that gives _me_ headaches, when I start thinking about alternate > time-tracks and alternate outcomes). > > So-o-o, Ron/Albus now has Lord Voldemort to deal with, and he learns quickly > that even without his now-erased-from-history evil mentor, Voldemort's a > formidable foe. While he knows _some_ things, he doesn't know everything, > and he's changed history enough that his foreknowledge isn't much help any > more. \ > > Hoping this will stir up some discussion, > > Eric Neri answers: Welcome to the time-travel squad, Eric! Your suggestion is an imaginative version of the different histories series (see the original post). The problem with it is that if young Ron in our history will travel to the past at all to become DD (which is actually not necessary in your version, because our DD is another Ron, coming from a different history), then he will go to a yet a third history, and his actions will not affect the current history. You can fix this by sending young Ron to the history where DD is coming from, thus closing the loop and having a version of the Double Loop Ploy. Kind of lending a whole new meaning to the History of Magic subject. I always felt Prof. Binns doesn't teach it properly. Neri From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 00:10:28 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:10:28 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror + a QUESTION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89041 For those interested in the question and not the debate, its the last thing before my sig. at the end, so just scroll down. ^_^ -Frost > sachmet96 > That's no excuse if it were then everyone who tries to shoot someone and misses because of inexperience with a gun would also not be guilty. Frost: Maybe, if he had tried to use a gun. But I don't think a wand is like a gun and any comparison would be misleading. Anyhow, if you attempt to assault someone, and fail, it is considered a lesser crime. And its never cut and dry, you can have a charge lessened by extenuating circumstances, which these were. > sachmet96 > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at the > age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. > Frost: No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. Crucio is not the same as a AK. The difficulty is still that he tried to use an unforgivable, but was unable to. Its not cut and dry either way. While it will cause some problems, I don't think that it would be impossible, or necessarily wrong for it to be forgiven by the courts, and him allowed to be an auror. I think what will matter more is how he develops from that point. However, its not a very black and white issue, and you are right in that it could be a real snare for him. > > Sachmet96 > > He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above > > average. > > Frost wrote: I doubt any of them, with the exception of Hermione, would be able to produce a real patronus when faced with a real dementor. > sachmet96 > I do think all of them would be able to do it (or nearly all of them). Of course we will have to wait and see for the next books to hopefully get an answer. > Frost: I guess its obvious that I don't agree with you. And I think the cannon supports me. "They had finally started work on Patronuses, which everybody had been very keen on to practice, though as Harry kept reminding them, producing a Patronus in the middle of a brightly lit classroom when they were not under threat was very different to producing it when confronted with something like a dementor." (OoP, p.606) It's not easy magic, and even worse, its magic you have to do while under extreme stress. You can't panic, you can't think about anything but your happy thought. You have to override every single "fight-or-flight" response. And you have to overcome the dementor's sucking all you're happy thoughts out of you for food. Anyhow, not all of them could do it in the book. "[Harry]'...What we really need is a boggart or something; that's how I learned, I had to conjure a Patronus while the boggart was pretending to be a dementor-' 'But that would be really scary! said Lavender, who was shooting puffs of sliver vapor out of the end of her wand. "And I still --can't -- do it!" she added angrily." (OoP, p.606) The book goes on to say that Neville was having trouble, and Seamus had just gotten "something hairy" (OoP, p. 607) but it didn't last long enough for Harry to see, or for Seamus to tell what it was. We don't get a run-down of who can and can't do it, but not everyone has it, and no one has had the chance to do it under any sort of pressure, other that peir pressure. Of course, they could surprise me. we'll see. ^_^ > Frost wrote: > He has leadership skills, and can work well on a team. > > sachmet96 > I also disagree here. He only works well with a team of his choosing and his leadership skills worked reasonably well for a team of his choosing too but that doesn't say anything how it will be with others. Frost: Actually, the only "team members" he chose out of the ones he lead to the Department of Mysteries were Ron and Hermione. Ginny, Luna, and Neville were not his choices at all. "...If [Harry] could have chosen any members of the D.A. in addition to himself, Ron, and Hermione to join him in the attempt to rescue Sirius, he would not have picked Ginny, Neville, or Luna." (OoP, p. 761) However, he still took them (not his choice really) and he lead them. And they followed. He was the clear leader in the Department of Mysteries, and he took responsibility for them in his action after he realized he had been tricked. Being tricked isn't a sign of bad leadership, just a sign of bad thinking, or good thinking on the part of the tricker. Or both. Also, look at the DA. It was Hermione's idea, but he ended up being the leader. He made the choices of curriculum, and he had the ability to get their respect, even from Zecharias Smith. And even though it wasn't his idea, he did make the conscious decision to lead this thing. He would have to, if he was teaching it, and teacher is a role of authority. Frankly, he did a good job. sachmet96: It was shown so far that he doesn't like to work with others but is constantly trying to solve anything on his own - so he is not really a team's person. Frost: That is a good point. He has been resistant to trusting others, esp. Authority figures. Though, growing up with the Dursleys as Authority figures, I can't blame him. *sighs* However, his relationship with Ron & Hermione has caused him to trust Ron and Hermione, and rely on them for help. At this point, I will agree with you, he's too much of a loner to make it. But then, he's growing, and maybe he'll learn to rely on others more in the next books. I'd like to think so, its a trend I think I see, but that is only conjecture. Anyhow, who knows. Maybe by the end he won't want to be an auror anymore. After all, he'll have dealt with "the Darkest Magic there is", and he might be tired of it. Which leads to another question: QUESTION: If Harry is not an Auror after Hogwarts, what do you think he will be. This is, of course, assuming that he isn't dead. Frost From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 02:13:08 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:13:08 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89042 Iggy wrote about his theory that Love is behind the locked DoM door: >The only problem is, as good a one as it is, does it sound a little >clich?? (Kinda like the opening of the Ark in "Raiders of the Lost >Ark" or the thing with the Grail in "the Last Crusade.") Sawsan here: >I really like that theory, and even though it might be a bit cliche I >do think that JKR has her own way of over coming them well, don't you >think?? For example, How she brings the witches and broomsticks, but >now there are different types and she even gives us a history on why >they were used in Quidditch Through the Ages. Annemehr: Iggy, I wouldn't say cliche, exactly, just maybe a little too easy. If it was Love, why didn't Dumbledore just say it? He dances all around it but never says the word (maybe it's just a "guy" thing). That's what made me all eager to explore other theories. Sawsan is right here, though. JKR is good at throwing that little twist into well-used ideas and making something new. > Sawsan, to AnneMehr, about it being Truth: > > I like it when you say it better :)) You made me make sense!!! Great >I am glad that you pointed out a lot more than what I expected. Annemehr, blushing: I did? But... All I did was add the detentions to the pot. I'm sorry to say I don't have any more ideas, either. But thank you! Sawsan: I have > always been a big DoM sacrificial love supporter until I read that JKR > said that it was close. Yes, real Love is hard to find but the actual > truth is an endangered species, very good observation. Well lets just > leave it as, the truth will set us free when JKR actually lets us in > on what the truth about the DoM secret weapon is. Annemehr: Yes, I think we will have to wait. It may be true that it's more likely to be Love behind the locked door, and the power that saved Harry from the possession, but I also have a very strong feeling that Truth must come into the story somehow. Perhaps Truth is behind one of the other doors in the DoM; after all, they never did open all of them. Now I'm curious as to how the poll is going about what you think is behind the locked door. I didn't vote because I couldn't pick an answer, so I can't see the results! Annemehr who does believe there's such a thing as absolute truth From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 02:34:46 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:34:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89043 > Sue Wrote: > In what I have read, no one has referenced > the watch that DD wears. JKR has refered to it at least once (it > seems to me) in every book. Whether Ron is Dumbledore or not, there > is something going on with time and Dumbledore has the answer sitting > on his wrist. > > vmonte replies: > You know Sue what a great post! I completely forgot about DD's > watch. I think that may be the answer to how DD time travels. The > watch is different, with multiple hands, right! I wonder if this is > how he keeps track of all the different times he has gone back in > time. Perhaps he has been skipping around. Doing a few years here and > a few years there. I need to find out all the different times his > watch was mentioned in the books. What was going on at the time the > watch was mentioned? Did DD recently have to go back in time? > > vmonte again: > Did DD recently have to go back in time to correct an error? How about > Aberforth? Aberforth is in Moody's photograph. Supposedly that is the > only time Aberforth was ever seen (at least by Moody). DD may have > needed to come back twice to correct a mistake? Neri adds: The idea about DD's watch is appealing. I ran a quick search, and came up with three times where it is mentioned. Interestingly enough, one is in PoA when he sends Harry and Hermione to their 3 hrs time- travel to save Sirius. CS/PS, first chapter: Professor McGonagall pulled out a lace handkerchief and dabbed at her eyes beneath her spectacles. Dumbledore gave a great sniff as he took a golden watch from his pocket and examined it. It was a very odd watch. It had twelve hands but no numbers; instead, little planets were moving around the edge. It must have made sense to Dumbledore, though, because he put it back in his pocket and said, "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" PoA, DD sends Harry and Hermione to the past: "Now, pay attention," said Dumbledore, speaking very low, and very clearly. "Sirius is locked in Professor Flitwick's office on the seventh floor. Thirteenth window from the right of the West Tower. If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight. But remember this, both of you: you must not be seen. Miss Granger, you know the law ? you know what is at stake You ? must ? not ? be ?seen." Harry didn't have a clue what was going on. Dumbledore had turned on his heel and looked back as he reached the door. "I am going to lock you in. It is ?" he consulted his watch, "five minutes to midnight. Miss Granger, three turns should do it. Good luck." OotP, Just after the great battle in the MoM: 'Now see here, Dumbledore!' said Fudge, as Dumbledore picked up the head and walked back to Harry carrying it. 'You haven't got authorisation for that Portkey! You can't do things like that right in front of the Minister for Magic, you ? you ? ' His voice faltered as Dumbledore surveyed him magisterially over his half-moon spectacles. 'You will give the order to remove Dolores Umbridge from Hogwarts,' said Dumbledore. 'You will tell your Aurors to stop searching for my Care of Magical Creatures teacher so that he can return to work. I will give you . . .' Dumbledore pulled a watch with twelve hands from his pocket and surveyed it. . . half an hour of my time tonight, in which I think we shall be more than able to cover the important points of what has happened here. After that, I shall need to return to my school. If you need more help from me you are, of course, more than welcome to contact me at Hogwarts. Letters addressed to the Headmaster will find me.' Ideas, anybody? Neri From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 18 02:41:32 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:41:32 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89044 I go along with TRUTH. It's a much more abstract and difficult concept to grasp than Love, or Self-sacrifice. The nature of truth has been debated for centuries, without anyone coming to a definitive conclusion. Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth" and as Swinburne pointed out, failed to wait for a reply. I'd quite like to think that JKR is endeavouring to supply the answer Pilate couldn't wait for. Sylvia From aimking0110 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 03:25:53 2004 From: aimking0110 at yahoo.com (Garrett) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:25:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledores wristwatch (an alternate theroy then the one going on now) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89045 Ok, a LONG time ago I saw/heard a theroy about all the rooms in the dept. of Mysterys(sp?) represent a certain mysery to Mankind. Maybe DD watch' has something to do with that (Luna ginny and Ron were all in the solor system floating). It could also somehow have to do with the weasleys clock. (Maybe DD is related to the weasley's?) Garrett From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 04:02:16 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:02:16 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89047 Sylvia wrote: I go along with TRUTH. It's a much more abstract and difficult concept to grasp than Love, or Self-sacrifice. The nature of truth has been debated for centuries, without anyone coming to a definitive conclusion. Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth" and as Swinburne pointed out, failed to wait for a reply. I'd quite like to think that JKR is endeavouring to supply the answer Pilate couldn't wait for. vmonte responds: I think truth is very subjective. Just look at how history is recorded. Each side (example: in war) will record history through their subjective point of view. Whatever is behind the door is also something that Harry's mother and Harry have in abundance. We don't really know much about Lily except that she gave up her life to save her son. She has unconditional love,she's courageous, and she is also compassionate towards others (she sticks up for Snape in the pensieve scene). Harry also has unconditional love towards his friends, he is courageous, and he is compassionate towards others (he stands up for Neville, he frees Dobby, and he feels bad for Luna at the end of OOTP, to name just a few instances). He has love for humanity and is selfless, even when he is treated badly (he saves Dudley from the dementors, even though Dudley is often cruel). Voldemort is the exact opposite of Harry and Lily. He is a petty criminal who feels sorry for himself because he didn't have the parents he felt he should have. He is a bitter loser, without compassion, love, or humanity. Harry had a lousy life before he entered Hogwarts but he chose to not let that life define him. It is his great strength, and Voldemort's greatest weakness. Finally, Harry is also fearless; and Voldemort is a coward who fears death. Something that Harry and his mother do/did not fear. Here is the definition of humanity: The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness. "The common offices of humanity and friendship." vmonte (Funny, Snape doesn't seem to have many of these qualities either. If he is working for the OOTP he is probably in it for something. I wonder what he wants, or was promised?) From hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu Sun Jan 18 04:49:23 2004 From: hanbury at cbmi.upmc.edu (phanbu) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:49:23 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89048 Sue wrote: > Personally I like the idea of it being Percy who is sent > back with Ron after being memory charmed into a stuper for > doing so many stupid, stupid things. Who better to get > into trouble with a goat. That depends on whether the inappropriate charm would behoove a joke shop. I don't think that the goat cares about cauldron thicknesses. - Phanbu From amani at charter.net Sun Jan 18 04:49:31 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:49:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crookshanks References: Message-ID: <00f401c3dd7e$76673940$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "watercolor_stain" wrote: > Has there been any speculation that Hermione's cat Crookshanks is > perhaps a secret Animungus? I put forth this idea in a conversational > group, and was resoundly dismissed. Honey: I am afraid I am unable to locate the old posts on this subject, but I think it was suggested that Crookshanks might be part Kneazle. Not really strong evidence either way though, I think, and I could be convinced of any outlandish theory if you have a funny enough story to present it. (Please?) Taryn: Actually, JKR confirmed that Crookshanks is Half-Kneazle in April 27, 2001 Newsround interview. Lizo: ...I was particularly interested in the bit about the Kneazle, is Crookshanks possibly... uh, have any Kneazle...? JKR: Yes, part-Kneazle yes, he is, yes, well-spotted. Lizo: And is that important...? JKR: Well, you'll just have to keep reading, won't you Lizo? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/JKR%20Chats/ (Newsroundinterview.txt) Took me a sec to find the interview, as it's not in Quick Quotes, surprisingly! It's in the group's own interview files. (Seems it wouldn't be in Quick Quotes, as I got multiple reports from different respectable sites like the Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet when I tried a google search on it. Ah well.) ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dk_manchester at hotmail.com Sat Jan 17 22:59:09 2004 From: dk_manchester at hotmail.com (Dave) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:59:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's Motives In-Reply-To: <20040116210448.6626.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > > Dave wrote: > I think hits to the hub of Snape, his duplicity, he acts mean and > evil, yet he helps Harry when he needs him. > He has the Dark Mark of the Death Eaters yet Dumbledore 'trusts' him. > He also has the ability, 'Legimens' and 'Occlumency' to read others > minds and block his own thoughts, which could mean he tells some > people what they want to hear whilst blocking his true thoughts. > > Anneli: > At the end of GoF when Harry's in the hospital wing, DD says something to Snape (sorry no page ref.) at which he turns pale and leaves. I thought this might be DD telling Snape that he has to rejoin the DEs. Snape will be able to block Voldie from reading his thoughts and telling that he's a spy. There's a bit in OotP when Harry's learning occlumency. He gets angry and asks Snape sarkily if it's his job to get info about Voldy (or something - sorry about memory). Snape smiles and says "yes, it is". I thought this was a ref to the fact that by now Snape is working as a double agent. > But is Snape working solely for Dumbledore or, as I think, is there some as yet unknown agenda that he is working to, in short is he fully trustworthy as a foe to Voldemort. The truth beind Snapes 'apparent' loyalty has not been explicitly told. On the other hand this may well be the point for JKR, to point out that not all nice people are good, and not all nasty people are all bad, ie. Gilderoy Lockheart was nice, but a very bad person, and Snape who on the surface is a mean nasty person, but he is doing good in the fight against Voldemort. The world is full of shades of grey, and in the real world you cannot judge poeople at face value. Dave. From estrom2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 05:15:04 2004 From: estrom2000 at yahoo.com (estrom2000) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:15:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89051 Honey wrote: > Parenthetically, it seems to me that since Hagrid is now "cleared of > all charges" and apparently eligible to complete his wizard training, > he could go to Olivander's and buy a new wand completely legally. What > do you think? Nellie: I've also thought about it - it seems strange that although Hagrid's name was cleared, he didn't get a new wand (at least we never see him using one, including during the atttack at the end of OTTP), especially as he became a teacher at Hogwarts right away. Maybe there is a rule that he has to pass some exams, like OWLs, to be qualified to use it freely, like other adults, and since he was expelled in his 3rd year he has to learn a lot and, of course, he can't go to classes now that he's in his sixties. I guess there is no actual law about who can become a professor at school, but there are obviously elaborate laws about wand use in the magical community. However, it's a bit unclear whether the restriction on underrage use of magic is more about age (and then adult wizards who had never been trained anywhere could buy a wand and use it) or more about the completion of magical education at some accredited school. On one hand we have the Weasley twins who leave school before taking NEWTs and apparently don't expect any wand use consequences, but on the other hand Hagrid was indeed not allowed to use a wand even as an adult because he had been expelled (and apparently Harry's wand would have been snapped too if he had been expelled). Is the difference in the level of education, e.g. between a person who has almost completed the course and passed the OWLs and someone who hasn't yet? (NEWTs seem to be more career-oriented and different people take different NEWTs.) But then we don't hear anything about students being allowed to use magic freely after they pass OWLs. So what happens to people who, for various reasons, don't complete their magical education, after they reach adulthood? Can wizards and witches in general use magic at their own descretion after they turn 18 or after they graduate from Hogwarts? And is passing NEWTs necessary to graduate from Hogwarts, or just for some prestigious jobs? What do you think? I also wonder, how precisely does the Ministry discern the underrage use of magic. In COS they couldn't even distinguish between a house- elf's wanderless magic and Harry's wand magic, accusing him just because it happened in his place of residence (like nobody could visit him on vacations). How on earth do they then distinguish between magic done by a parent's wand and a kid's wand in a wizarding family? Or even more so, if a kid took his/her parent's or elder sibling's wand to do some magic? Any thoughts? Nellie. From estrom2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 05:37:16 2004 From: estrom2000 at yahoo.com (estrom2000) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:37:16 -0000 Subject: thoughts about broomsticks and potions In-Reply-To: <20040117162048.15386.qmail@web25005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > On to broomsticks: can only witches and wizards ride > broomsticks? When Harry gets the firebolt (PoA) it > automatically hovers at the right height for him. Can > brooms sense whether someone is innately magical, in > other words if Filch got on one would it just fall to > the ground? Nellie: My guess is as good as yours, but since we see that even innately magical people have to learn to fly a broomstick, and their abilities at it vary greatly - Neville did fall off his at his first attempt - so maybe the same would happen to a Muggle or a Squib. They probably wouldn't even be able to make the broom hover up for them to mount (as even many magical students couldn't at their first attempt) or control it afterwards. Harry was clearly an exception, even for a wizard. I wonder, though, could a Muggle or a Squib brew magical potions? It doesn't seem to require either wands or incantations - just following the recipe. Maybe that's why Snape doesn't like teaching it in spite of his being so good at it - because he knows that it doesn't require specifically magical abilities, and even a Muggle could do it, and he probably doesn't think much of Muggles. Just a thought. Nellie. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Sun Jan 18 08:15:24 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:15:24 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89053 Kneasy wrote: "It's Life. It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice. "Ah!" you may say, "but Voldy wants to be immortal. How can Harry be the opposite?" Life is a lot more than avoiding death." Think about it; it's Life-force vs. Death Eaters. Very interesting Kneasy. You know, I had been thinking along those lines as well after my last post about the DoM because of a few things I had noticed; First off, "more wonderful and more terrible than death": well when you think about it life can be wonderful and terrible and even moreso than death. Some people would rather death instead of the lives they live. Life can be wonderful, and a new one is always a wonder and wonderful. Second: Voldemort wants to live forever, but at the same time he is not completely dead either. He also is said by Hagrid to "not have enough human in him to die." and yet he is not where he wants to be. He wants to live forever, not survive forever as he has been surviving so far. Also in PS/SS I think it was Firenze who said that anyone who drinks unicorn blood will be cursed with a half life... and so Voldi does, but he is not content at just that. I think being immortal and being alive forever is not the same. When you are immortal, you are dead, but somehow surviving on earth. Think Vampires and such. Though he wants to live forever, he needs to be dead I guess, and yet Harry is so full of life. His mother gave her life to save his and he lived even after Voldemort tried to kill him. He is the boy who LIVED, which has him famous in the Wizarding World. Also, it is wonderful that his life had hurt a strong dark wizard, but the boy who lived has many losses in his life. His life is both more wonderful and more terrible than death, if you want to think about it in that sense. Voldemort cannot stand to be touched by such a strong life force, especially one that once diminished his own. Voldi wants the Sorceror's stone to have eternal life, and Dumbledore says something along the lines of " To the well organized mind, Death is like sleeping after a very long day." and that 'people often want what is not good for them' (poorly paraphrased sorry it is in the last chapter of the Sorceror's stone.) Both of those lines go along with what he says to Voldemort at the DoM in Chapter 36 of OotP: "Indeed your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness." Also in that same chapter, Voldi in snake form coiled so tightly around Harry and his scar was hurting. "If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy..." 'Let the pain stop,' thought Harry,'Let him kill us...End it, Dumbledore...Death is nothing compared to this... And I'll see Sirius again...' Ok so that brings me back to my point, Harry has a hard life full of suffering, but in spite it all, he has a strong life force and is willing to accept death as long as he helps other lives. THanks Kneasy for pointing that out, I agree with you, and we will see (hopefully soon) :P From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 18 12:59:05 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:59:05 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89054 I would agree with vmonte that truth, as we experience it, is profoundly subjective. This is because it is usually tainted with human emotions, ambitions, tunnel-vision and all the other things that make up the human condition. If the locked room does contain truth, it would be a truth of utter purity, an ultimate truth. I'm not at all sure what I mean by that, but I still prefer it to the much easier and obvious idea of Love, which is also, btw, a highly subjective emotion. Sylvia From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sun Jan 18 13:34:46 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:34:46 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hats -Elves Clean Clothes - Quote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > >watercolourstain writes : > > > That's not quite true is it, because the house elves were > > > "insulted" and they refused to clean the Gryffindor tower for > > > "fear" of finding one of the hats and being freed. snip > > > > > AmanitaMuscaria now: > > > > No, the houseelves aren't frightened by the clothes, they are > > insulted, though. (UK OotP pg.341-2) > > > > ...edited... > > > > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria > > > bboy_mn: > > Just going to jump into the conversation here with a quote from Goblet > of Fire- > > - - - Quote - Gof Am Ed HB pg 677 - - - > > Crouch!Moody speaks to Harry... > > "You told me at the Yule Ball a house-elf called Dobby had given you a > Christmas present. I called the elf to the staffroom to collect some > robes for cleaning. ...etc..." > > - - -end quote- - - > > Now one could argue that Dobby was already free, so he could come and > collect the robes without worry of freeing him again. But I don't > think Fake!Moody had that much knowledge about Dobby. To him, Dobby > was just another elf. But that didn't stop him from calling Dobby to > collect some robes for cleaning. > > I still stand by the postion, that Hermione was and is hopelessly > misguided. She was struck with an impulsive idea that she didn't think > through. If there is one word that describes Hermione's efforts on > behalf of the house-elves it is 'misguided'. AmanitaMuscaria now: I agree with you on the Hermione issue - she's very definitely headed for a fall here. She's epitomising the worst sort of muddied liberal thinking, that strives to give someone something they're not asking for, but which seems 'right' from the giver's point of view. I can't see JKR allowing her to get away with that ... And I'd forgotten that particular passage - Dobby merely tells Harry that the other houseelves are not amused by Hermione's attempted deceptions. > What do you think all the elves would do if they were suddenly free? snip AmanitaMuscaria now: I wonder what houseelves' magic might suit them for. They are powerful magical beings, and seem a bit wasted doing housework. I wonder if they originally started out as bodyguards/protectors? It's certainly what Dobby seems to want to be for Harry, if somewhat misguidedly at times. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria > The elves really are happy with what they do, and take pride in having > served generations of a family with generations of there own elfin > family. snip > The elves are fine, it's the wizards who need to be fixed. > > Just a thought. > > bboy_mn From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 18 13:47:21 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:47:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89056 Neri wrote: > The idea about DD's watch is appealing. I ran a quick search, and > came up with three times where it is mentioned. Interestingly enough, > one is in PoA when he sends Harry and Hermione to their 3 hrs time- > travel to save Sirius. > > CS/PS, first chapter: > > Professor McGonagall pulled out a lace handkerchief and dabbed at her > eyes beneath her spectacles. Dumbledore gave a great sniff as he took > a golden watch from his pocket and examined it. It was a very odd > watch. It had twelve hands but no numbers; instead, little planets > were moving around the edge. It must have made sense to Dumbledore, > though, because he put it back in his pocket and said, "Hagrid's > late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" > > PoA, DD sends Harry and Hermione to the past: > > "Now, pay attention," said Dumbledore, speaking very low, and very > clearly. "Sirius is locked in Professor Flitwick's office on the > seventh floor. Thirteenth window from the right of the West Tower. If > all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life > tonight. But remember this, both of you: you must not be seen. Miss > Granger, you know the law ? you know what is at stake You ? must ? > not ? be ?seen." > Harry didn't have a clue what was going on. Dumbledore had > turned on his heel and looked back as he reached the door. > "I am going to lock you in. It is ?" he consulted his > watch, "five minutes to midnight. Miss Granger, three turns should do > it. Good luck." > > OotP, Just after the great battle in the MoM: > > 'Now see here, Dumbledore!' said Fudge, as Dumbledore picked up the > head and walked back to Harry carrying it. 'You haven't got > authorisation for that Portkey! You can't do things like that right > in front of the Minister for Magic, you ? you ? ' > His voice faltered as Dumbledore surveyed him magisterially over > his half-moon spectacles. > 'You will give the order to remove Dolores Umbridge from > Hogwarts,' said Dumbledore. 'You will tell your Aurors to stop > searching for my Care of Magical Creatures teacher so that he can > return to work. I will give you . . .' Dumbledore pulled a watch with > twelve hands from his pocket and surveyed it. . . half an hour of my > time tonight, in which I think we shall be more than able to cover > the important points of what has happened here. After that, I shall > need to return to my school. If you need more help from me you are, > of course, more than welcome to contact me at Hogwarts. Letters > addressed to the Headmaster will find me.' Berit replies: Good research :-) But in all these three passages where DD's watch is mentioned, it looks like he's using it the same way ordinary watches are used; to consult the sort of time we're used to; the linear one :- ) He checks his watch to decide how much time he's going to give Fudge; he looks at his watch and it tells him it is five minutes to midnight (nothing spooky about that), and in the first instance he checks his watch and announces that Hagrid is late. Nothing extraordinary. From these passages it's hard to deduce that the watch is used in time travel; i.e. canon doesn't support it so far. I'm not saying it couldn't be more to the watch than meets the eye, but Rowling is not saying or hinting in these passages exactly what that might be, since DD so far only has used the watch the "ordinary" way. (Sorry; I'm one of the sceptics who really don't think time travel is going to be used again) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sun Jan 18 15:01:02 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:01:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3ddd3$e74bd350$8d667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89057 > Sylvia > > > I would agree with vmonte that truth, as we experience it, is > profoundly subjective. This is because it is usually tainted with > human emotions, ambitions, tunnel-vision and all the other things > that make up the human condition. If the locked room does contain > truth, it would be a truth of utter purity, an ultimate truth. I'm > not at all sure what I mean by that, but I still prefer it to the > much easier and obvious idea of Love, which is also, btw, a highly > subjective emotion. > Iggy here: Yes, love is a highly subjective emotion. All emotions are felt differently by the person feeling them. On the other hand, the definition of what love IS can be more commonly agreed upon by everyone as a whole. Truth, on the other hand, is subjective even in its definition. As I stated in a recent post on this thread, and using religion as the most prevalent example, what is the Truth to one religion is not the Truth for another. Love is an emotion, and influences how a person experiences and views life itself. Truth (with the big "T"), is not an emotion, it is a statement of the very nature of reality. It doesn't influence your life, it dictates existence itself. I feel that JKR would be making a BIG mistake if she had it be Truth, since there would be too many people who would find fault with it, even among her hard-core fans, since she would have to define it. Love has a common enough definition that she wouldn't have to define it, she would simply have to describe how Harry and/or Voldemort experience it. If she didn't define what was behind the door (if it's not Love or Life) but still tried to use it, it would be a let down, IMHO. If she used Truth, and tried to define it, it would cause a lot of conflict among the readers. (And only the Powers That Be know how the religious fanatics would attack it if it wasn't in accordance to their own religion's definition of Truth. I think even some of the Pagan groups would be pissed if it was something like the Christian definition, and the Christians would still be pissed since their Truth doesn't allow for fantastic beasts, human magery, potions, etc...) Kneasey's idea of it being Life would work the same way as love, even though Life isn't an emotion. It is a common, and simple enough, concept in definition that she would only need to describe how the pure Life Force is experienced. Which leads me to being at a 50/50 split on what I believe is behind the door. It's either Love, or Life. Iggy McSnurd (Who has given up on lurking here, since too many of the subjects lately are sparking my interest. Oh well... *grin*) From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 18 15:24:37 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:24:37 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror + a QUESTION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89058 > For those interested in the question and not the debate, its the > last thing before my sig. at the end, so just scroll down. ^_^ - Frost sachmet96 It seems we are the only one interested in the debate :-). > > sachmet96 > > That's no excuse if it were then everyone who tries to shoot > someone and misses because of inexperience with a gun would also > not be guilty. > > Frost: > Maybe, if he had tried to use a gun. But I don't think a > wand is like a gun and any comparison would be misleading. > > Anyhow, if you attempt to assault someone, and fail, it is > considered a lesser crime. And its never cut and dry, you can have > a charge lessened by extenuating circumstances, which these were. sachmet96 Maybe but I am still not entirely convinced. If he had used not an unforgivable but another curse I would agree with you. > > sachmet96 > > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at > the > > age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. > > > > Frost: > No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. > Crucio is not the same as a AK. sachmet96 But he still wanted to kill her (he says so). We don't know why he didn't use AK maybe he didn't know how to use it but felt surer with Crucio (and I do think this curse could kill) or it's just the bad memories assosiacted with AK that stopped him from using this curse. Also he remembers Neville when he cast the curse so maybe he used it because he wanted to torture Bellatrix first and then kill her slowly. We just don't know. > > > Sachmet96 > > > He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above > > > average. > > > > Frost wrote: > > I doubt any of them, with the exception of Hermione, would be able > to produce a real patronus when faced with a real dementor. > > > sachmet96 > > I do think all of them would be able to do it (or nearly all of > them). Of course we will have to wait and see for the next books to > hopefully get an answer. > > > > Frost: > I guess its obvious that I don't agree with you. grin> And I think the cannon supports me. sachmet96 And I just love to disagree :-) Frost: > "They had finally started work on Patronuses, which > everybody had been very keen on to practice, though as Harry kept > reminding them, producing a Patronus in the middle of a brightly lit > classroom when they were not under threat was very different to > producing it when confronted with something like a dementor." (OoP, > p.606) sachmet96 He is exaggerating. His reactions to everything are overly emotional. Lupin for example faces the moon boggart and doesn't bat an eye. The problem Harry has is that he is too uncontroled/emotional, that's also one of the reasons why he was so bad at occlumency. We don't know how others would react. They do know now about boggarts, dementors and what they do and knowing something makes it usually easier to stand against it. So I still think they would be perfectly able to defend themselves. > It's not easy magic, and even worse, its magic you have to > do while under extreme stress. You can't panic, you can't think > about anything but your happy thought. You have to override every > single "fight-or-flight" response. And you have to overcome the > dementor's sucking all you're happy thoughts out of you for food. > Anyhow, not all of them could do it in the book. > "[Harry]'...What we really need is a boggart or something; > that's how I learned, I had to conjure a Patronus while the boggart > was pretending to be a dementor-' > 'But that would be really scary! said Lavender, who was > shooting puffs of sliver vapor out of the end of her wand. "And I > still --can't -- do it!" she added angrily." (OoP, p.606) > > The book goes on to say that Neville was having trouble, > and Seamus had just gotten "something hairy" (OoP, p. 607) but it > didn't last long enough for Harry to see, or for Seamus to tell what > it was. We don't get a run-down of who can and can't do it, but not > everyone has it, and no one has had the chance to do it under any > sort of pressure, other that peir pressure. > Of course, they could surprise me. we'll see. ^_^ sachmet96 Good quotes, but (does it surprise you?) they don't convince me, as I said Harry is overly emotional and has little self control. We will have to wait and see what happens. > > Frost wrote: > > He has leadership skills, and can work well on a team. > > > > sachmet96 > > I also disagree here. He only works well with a team of his > choosing and his leadership skills worked reasonably well for a > team of his choosing too but that doesn't say anything how it will > be with others. > > Frost: > Actually, the only "team members" he chose out of the ones > he lead to the Department of Mysteries were Ron and Hermione. > Ginny, Luna, and Neville were not his choices at all. > "...If [Harry] could have chosen any members of the D.A. in > addition to himself, Ron, and Hermione to join him in the attempt to > rescue Sirius, he would not have picked Ginny, Neville, or Luna." > (OoP, p. 761) > However, he still took them (not his choice really) and he > lead them. And they followed. He was the clear leader in the > Department of Mysteries, and he took responsibility for them in his > action after he realized he had been tricked. Being tricked isn't a > sign of bad leadership, just a sign of bad thinking, or good > thinking on the part of the tricker. Or both. sachmet96 But he did know Ginny, Neville and Luna they were if not friends at least people he knew. So that makes a different. We don't know how he would have acted with strangers. And I think he made an error when he lead them to the MoM because he just overruled Hermione's objections and common reason. His emotions again got in his way. I don't think a good leader should be ruled by his emotions but look at the situation as a whole. He had been told the whole school year that Voldemort would be able to manipulate him but he doesn't consider that fully but acts instead of thinking. Frost > Also, look at the DA. It was Hermione's idea, but he ended > up being the leader. He made the choices of curriculum, and he had > the ability to get their respect, even from Zecharias Smith. And > even though it wasn't his idea, he did make the conscious decision > to lead this thing. He would have to, if he was teaching it, and > teacher is a role of authority. Frankly, he did a good job. sachmet96 I am not denying that he did a good job and earned respect but he wasn't really a teacher but a tutor and there is a difference between them. People interact differently with a tutor than a teacher and a tutor is considered one of them while a teacher is more an authority figure. At least that's my experience. > sachmet96: > It was shown so far that he doesn't like to work with others but is > constantly trying to solve anything on his own - so he is not really > a team's person. > > Frost: > That is a good point. He has been resistant to trusting others, > esp. Authority figures. Though, growing up with the Dursleys as > Authority figures, I can't blame him. *sighs* However, his > relationship with Ron & Hermione has caused him to trust Ron and > Hermione, and rely on them for help. At this point, I will agree > with you, he's too much of a loner to make it. But then, he's > growing, and maybe he'll learn to rely on others more in the next > books. I'd like to think so, its a trend I think I see, but that is > only conjecture. sachmet96 I hope he learns it in time and cools down a bit. Frost: > Anyhow, who knows. Maybe by the end he won't want to be an auror > anymore. After all, he'll have dealt with "the Darkest Magic there > is", and he might be tired of it. Which leads to another sachmet96 Actually one of the reasons I am against him being an auror is that I have the feeling he does see the job glorified. Like for example many kids want to become a fireworker or something but when they grow up see it was just a dream and recognise that the job carries a lot of responibility and danger and deside against doing it. > QUESTION: > > If Harry is not an Auror after Hogwarts, what do you think he will > be. This is, of course, assuming that he isn't dead. sachmet96 Hard question Harry has shown so little interest in anything except Quidditch but I can't picture him as a Quidditch player. I think his job choice will also depend on who/what places he wants to stay close. So if he wants to be near Hogwards (and Haggrid if he survives) I could see him working as Game's Keeper assistant, it would also be a quiet job which he might like. I don't see him as a teacher as he will most probably not have the patience and as I said I think he would prefer a quiet job. Or he might not work at all. He has lots of money so he might decide to just enjoy life. to Frost: What do you see him as? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 15:50:08 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:50:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89059 > Berit replies: > > Good research :-) Neri notes: I must admit to my crimes, I also have the books in electronic documents. Making power search for words and pasting text in messages a snap. Is it legal if I also bought the books on dead tree (=paper, for you old-fashion persons). I mean, it doesn't hurt Scholastic or JKR in any way. As if there was any danger they'd go broke, lol. > Berit: But in all these three passages where DD's watch is > mentioned, it looks like he's using it the same way ordinary watches > are used; to consult the sort of time we're used to; the linear one :- > ) He checks his watch to decide how much time he's going to give > Fudge; he looks at his watch and it tells him it is five minutes to > midnight (nothing spooky about that), and in the first instance he > checks his watch and announces that Hagrid is late. Nothing > extraordinary. From these passages it's hard to deduce that the watch > is used in time travel; i.e. canon doesn't support it so far. I'm not > saying it couldn't be more to the watch than meets the eye, but > Rowling is not saying or hinting in these passages exactly what that > might be, since DD so far only has used the watch the "ordinary" way. > > (Sorry; I'm one of the sceptics who really don't think time travel is > going to be used again) Neri again: You might call me a skeptic that is still searching. I won't believe a time-travel theory, or any other kind of theory, that is inconsistent and/or does not make sense with the plot, the characters and the spirit of the books. In this case I readily admit you are right. There seems to be nothing unusual about the use of DD's clock. The 12 hands and planets business could be just some magic atmosphere in the first chapter of the first book. There *are* some innocent, plain details in the books. Well, back to the drawing board... Neri From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 18 16:03:12 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Jan 2004 16:03:12 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1074441792.58.9729.m4@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89060 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, January 18, 2004 Time: 11:00AM - 7:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) Hi everyone! Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. *Chat times are not changing for Daylight Saving/Summer Time.* Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. Go into any Yahoo chat room and type /join HP:1 For further info, see the Humongous BigFile, section 3.3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html#33 Hope to see you there! From RACH911 at aol.com Sun Jan 18 14:42:39 2004 From: RACH911 at aol.com (rach9112000) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:42:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" > > Berit replies: > > Good research :-) But in all these three passages where DD's watch is > mentioned, it looks like he's using it the same way ordinary watches > are used; to consult the sort of time we're used to; the linear one :- > ) He checks his watch to decide how much time he's going to give > Fudge; he looks at his watch and it tells him it is five minutes to > midnight (nothing spooky about that), and in the first instance he > checks his watch and announces that Hagrid is late. Nothing > extraordinary. From these passages it's hard to deduce that the watch > is used in time travel; i.e. canon doesn't support it so far. I'm not > saying it couldn't be more to the watch than meets the eye, but > Rowling is not saying or hinting in these passages exactly what that > might be, since DD so far only has used the watch the "ordinary" way. > > (Sorry; I'm one of the sceptics who really don't think time travel is > going to be used again) > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Rachel writes: I think the Dumbledore watch theory is a brilliant idea. Even though you're right in saying that there's no definitive canon which fully supports the theory, there also isn't any which denounces it. We have to remember that the books are intended to be mysteries and JKR is far too clever to hand us all the clues on a plate. Perhaps JKR refers to the time turning watch at times when one would also refer to a normal watch purposefully so that on first reading nothing would be thought of it but when deeper thought is given to it, there must be an alternative use for all 12 of those hands on the watch. I for one think there's more to come with time travel in the book. Dumbledore is ALWAYS one step ahead of everyone and never caught off guard or surprised. In addition, if this theory is accompanied by the theory that Dumbledore is an animagus and can transform into a bee, then this would explain how he is not seen when he goes back in time. Whenever he goes back in time, he can transform into a bee which means that he does not run the risk of being seen by anyone who he doesn't want to be seen by. Rachel. From gartzen at e-mail.dk Sun Jan 18 15:18:54 2004 From: gartzen at e-mail.dk (gartzen88) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:18:54 -0000 Subject: thoughts about wands and broomsticks In-Reply-To: <20040117162048.15386.qmail@web25005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89062 anneli lucas wrote: > I thought that the MoM might keep track of underage > magic through the wands, so if an underage > witch/wizard's *wand* does magic they get in trouble. > which might explain how the Weasley's can play > quidditch and Harry's occassional uncontrolled magic > isn't counted. > This would mean that children in magical families > could still do magic in the holidays if they used > someone else's wand (I know there was a discussion > about what happened to wands when the owner dies - was > there a conclusion?) GartZen: Well... Harry is blamed for Dobby's magic, so this can't be right... That was actully all I had to say ;) - GartZen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 18 17:16:55 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:16:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > > First year: He KNEW Quirrel was trying to steal the stone, possibly not because he was hiding Voldemort under his turban, but he knew he was up to something, did he go to Dumbledore? No.<< I'm not so sure. I think Snape and Dumbledore are hand-in-glove all the way through SS/PS. So why didn't Dumbledore act? Because Snape was the only witness that Quirrell was behind the attack on Harry's broom. And Dumbledore would have learned from Hagrid that Hermione would testify that it was Snape doing the cursing. With Snape under all eyes as the referee, everyone would be able to see *he* wasn't the one attacking Harry if it happened again. Though I think Snape was dreadfully disappointed when Harry managed to bring the match to an end so quickly and Snape didn't get a chance to rescue him, as he must've hoped. Also Dumbledore believes that Voldemort will be back, whether he succeeds in stealing the Stone or not. Dumbledore needs to make it look as though Snape is acting independently so that Snape can take up his role as spy again when Voldemort returns. I agree though, that Snape does want to act the hero. Rushing out to the Shrieking Shack was impetuous, and the same sort of thing that Harry did in rushing to save Sirius. >Notice, he came to work > at Hogwarts two months before James and Lilly died. >Coincidence? Depends on how you interpret his answer. Umbridge didn't ask, "How many years have you taught?" She asked, "How many years have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" If 1995 is the fourteenth year he's been teaching at Hogwarts, then he came to work in September 1992--after Voldemort's fall. Pippin From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 18 18:14:25 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:14:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89064 Rachel wrote: > I think the Dumbledore watch theory is a brilliant idea. Even > though you're right in saying that there's no definitive canon which > fully supports the theory, there also isn't any which denounces it. > We have to remember that the books are intended to be mysteries and > JKR is far too clever to hand us all the clues on a plate. Perhaps > JKR refers to the time turning watch at times when one would also > refer to a normal watch purposefully so that on first reading > nothing would be thought of it but when deeper thought is given to > it, there must be an alternative use for all 12 of those hands on > the watch. > I for one think there's more to come with time travel in the > book. Dumbledore is ALWAYS one step ahead of everyone and never > caught off guard or surprised. > In addition, if this theory is accompanied by the theory that > Dumbledore is an animagus and can transform into a bee, then this > would explain how he is not seen when he goes back in time. Whenever > he goes back in time, he can transform into a bee which means that > he does not run the risk of being seen by anyone who he doesn't want > to be seen by. Berit replies: You know; I agree that Dumbledore's watch probably can do more than just tell the time as we know it, just like Mrs. Weasleys watch has a different use. But if it has something to do with time travel (or foreseeing the future), we really can't say yet :-) As to whether Dumbledore is never caught off guard and always KNOWS what is going to happen, I have my doubts. If he does; why didn't he know exactly when Harry would be in danger at the end of every book, and try to prevent him from getting hurt or killed; BEFORE is got as far as it did? I can't for my life see how an intrinsically good person like DD chooses to not intervene to try to save the one boy the future of the Magical World depends upon... It just doesn't make sense. The instances where DD are told Harry is in danger, he always rushes to his help immediately; there's no canon evidence he sits back in his chair waiting things out because he /knows/ Harry will make it anyway. Yes, DD knows a lot, and can usually make quite good EDUCATED GUESSES as to what might happen (and especially what the enemy is up to). But that's something completely different. Example: At the end of GoF, when Harry and Cedric is transported back to the maze by the portkey, Impostor!Moody drags Harry away from DD to his office to finish Harry off. When DD, McGonagall and Snape come to Harry's rescue a few minutes later, just in time to prevent him getting killed, DD explains WHEN he understood Mad-Eye Moody was not the one he pretended to be: When he saw Moody take Harry away from DD's presence. The real Moody would never have done that. So DD puts two and two together and makes an educated guess. And he turned out to be right. This story doesn't make much sense if DD knew Moody was not Moody all along. If DD knew, then he is nothing more than a very SICK person :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 17:59:13 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:59:13 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror + a QUESTION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89065 > > > QUESTION: > > If Harry is not an Auror after Hogwarts, what do you think he will be? This is, of course, assuming that he isn't dead. > > sachmet96 > > I think he would prefer a quiet job. > Or he might not work at all. He has lots of money so he might decide to just enjoy life. to Frost: What do you see him as? Frost: Hmmm... I just don't see him having a quiet life. I think he'll go on a book circuit, just like his role model: Gilderoy Lockheart! Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a sucker for bad jokes. In reality, such as it is, I think the most likely would be Curse Breaker for Gringotts, or something along those lines. Just enough excitement and mystery to keep him occupied, but no more of this opposing the super-evil dark sorcerer stuff. The only thing is, after all this, I don't know how he's going to be able to lead a low profile life without using a Fidelius charm. Frost From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 18 18:45:07 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:45:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > snip> > Yes, DD knows a lot, and can usually make quite good EDUCATED GUESSES > as to what might happen (and especially what the enemy is up to). But > that's something completely different. > > Example: At the end of GoF, when Harry and Cedric is transported back > to the maze by the portkey, Impostor!Moody drags Harry away from DD > to his office to finish Harry off. When DD, McGonagall and Snape come > to Harry's rescue a few minutes later, just in time to prevent him > getting killed, DD explains WHEN he understood Mad-Eye Moody was not > the one he pretended to be: When he saw Moody take Harry away from > DD's presence. The real Moody would never have done that. So DD puts > two and two together and makes an educated guess. And he turned out > to be right. This story doesn't make much sense if DD knew Moody was > not Moody all along. If DD knew, then he is nothing more than a very > SICK person :-) > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html I agree with you that Dumbledore does not know everything that is going on. I too believe that if Dumbledore could have stopped anything bad from happening, especially the death of Cedric and the return of Voldemort, he would have. The watch to me is not definitive proof that Dumbledore is traveling through time, only that there is something happening we do not yet understand. Much like the instruments in his office, JKR has purposely not given us all of the information. There has always been method to Dumbledore's "madness". In other words, he doesn't wear a watch with 12 hands because he likes the way it looks. Sue From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 18 19:18:30 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:18:30 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malfoys at the Quidditch World Cup References: <1074383650.4129.17490.m17@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000e01c3ddf7$ddfb4b40$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 89067 Cassie wrote: > I was just rereading GoF when someone caught my attention. At the QWC (or at > least at the camp site) all the witches and wizards were required to wear > muggle clothing. Now, there is no canon to give us any hint either way, but do > you think the Malfoys also had to/did dress as muggles? I too am part way through rereading GoF (and as usual finding nuances that I missed the first time around!) and on this point found myself wondering exactly _why_ the MoM required Muggle dress for the fans. The stadium itself is bespelled very strongly - not just the "don't notice me" spell which I surmise that wizards hide their homes, workshops, farms, and so on with, but a "go away, now" spell (they remember an urgent appointment in the opposite direction). So no muggles to worry about there. The campsite owner and his family get bespelled several times a day with a memory charm (we might call it a "Tom Jones" spell - although they see funny things going on, they think "it's not unusual"!) So why worry about forcing 100,000 magical folk into Muggle dress? Given that most of them live their lives with no contact at all with Muggles, wouldn't eccentricity be the norm rather than the exception, thereby nullifying any possible benefit? Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Sun Jan 18 19:37:43 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:37:43 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89068 People have wondered about Ron, if he is a time-displaced dumbledore, not stopping Voldemort while he's still building up power. Probabuly - Ron acted to prevent LVs mother from becoming pregnant, but ended up sleeping with her himself and getting her in the family way. Time may be harder to alter than we think. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 18 21:32:07 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:32:07 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Sylvia wrote: > I go along with TRUTH. It's a much more abstract and difficult > concept to grasp than Love, or Self-sacrifice. The nature of truth > has been debated for centuries, without anyone coming to a definitive > conclusion. Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth" and as Swinburne > pointed out, failed to wait for a reply. I'd quite like to think that > JKR is endeavouring to supply the answer Pilate couldn't wait for. > > vmonte responds: > I think truth is very subjective. Just look at how history is > recorded. Each side (example: in war) will record history through > their subjective point of view. > Whatever is behind the door is also something that Harry's mother and > Harry have in abundance. We don't really know much about Lily except > that she gave up her life to save her son. She has unconditional > love,she's courageous, and she is also compassionate towards others > (she sticks up for Snape in the pensieve scene). Geoff: I would be inclined to go for both Truth and Love being the "force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death". A few years ago, I used to have long debates with a younger friend on the question of whether there were Basic Absolutes in life. He maintained that there were not; morals and attitudes were flexible and that he could decide whether something was right without reference to a benchmark. I disagreed with him and still hold that these Absolutes exist. To the end, I have capitalised Truth and Love in my opening sentence and will do when I am referring to them in this Absolute form but will use lower case letters when I am speaking in general terms. It is true that truth is often the apparent prerogative of the winner in a dispute but there is still a basic Truth which applies to our existence and which is not the whim of the society around us and with which people often prefer not to get too involved. As an aside, Pilate's question "What is truth?" was not a question to which he wanted an answer. When discussions on belief and Truth get too close to home, a standard response is frequently to change the subject, which was Pilate's ploy. Jesus made two profound observations about the Truth; In John 8:31-32 "If you hold to my teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free." And, in John 14:6, he said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Perhaps not everyone might want to subscribe to that but surely we must all share basic absolutes by which we accept that the world can operate. Turning to Love. The problem with "love" is that, certainly in the English language, it is a word which has a wide range of meanings and is often used very loosely. It can range from "I love chocolate ice- cream" (which is really expressing a liking) to "I love you, my darling" to the altruistic love which can show itself in self- sacrifice ? Lily protecting Harry as an example. I have on two occasions at least referred to C.S.Lewis' "The Four Loves" in which he writes on the four Greek words for love ? eros, philos, agape and the one which always slips my memory(!); each one looking at a different facet of love. The deepest love ? at least in my opinion as a Christian ? is agape which is, I suppose, best described as the altruistic, serving, love which is not seeking anything in return but seeks only the best interest of its recipient. Harry frequently wants the best for his friends; he wants to see them kept from Voldemort's clutches; he wants things to go right for them. Does he want anything in return? Maybe sometimes ? friendship, support, honesty. But there are times when he acts for their best as he sees it. Sometimes rashly, sometimes unthinkingly but he has been known to put his life on the line for the benefit of others and so would recognise the idea of agape. Voldemort, paralleled in a way by Sauron, cannot even begin to see this. He uses people, discards them when their usefulness is over, destroys them if they get in his way and could not, even in his wildest dreams, envisage the idea of giving without expectation of return or that anyone would think differently to him. This is the failure which both JKR and JRRT point up in their various personifications of evil. So I subscribe to the view that "the room" is involved with Love and Truth and, hence, Voldemort cannot visualise the effect of what is contained therein. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 18 21:40:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:40:16 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: Chris: > People have wondered about Ron, if he is a time-displaced dumbledore, not stopping Voldemort while he's still building up power. Probabuly - Ron acted to prevent LVs mother from becoming pregnant, but ended up sleeping with her himself and getting her in the family way. > > Time may be harder to alter than we think. Geoff: Am I being particularly thick tonight or are you suggesting that Ron is Tom Riddle's father? The development of your theory would be /most/ interesting. From adamjmarcantel at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 21:57:44 2004 From: adamjmarcantel at yahoo.com (adamjmarcantel) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:57:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's Motives In-Reply-To: <20040116210448.6626.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89071 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > > Dave wrote: > I think hits to the hub of Snape, his duplicity, he acts mean and > evil, yet he helps Harry when he needs him. > Anneli: > At the end of GoF when Harry's in the hospital wing, DD says something to Snape (sorry no page ref.) at which he turns pale and leaves. I thought this might be DD telling Snape that he has to rejoin the DEs. Snape will be able to block Voldie from reading his thoughts and telling that he's a spy...ref to the fact that by now Snape is working as a double agent. > > Anneli I question whether Snape's mission is to rejoin the DE's and act as a spy. The only thing we know is that Snape's job is to know what is going on in Riddle's world. The reason I doubt this is that at the the end of PS/SS, Quirrell/Riddle knows that Snape was trying to save Harry, prevent Q/R from getting the stone, and acting in every way to prevent Riddle from returning. The chance that Snape could now rejoin the DE's and say "yep, I was with you the whole time Tom! (or whatever Snape would call him)" is slim to none, based on what Riddle knows. There are only two former DE's whose loyalties Riddle knows for sure through direct interaction with them...Barty Crouch and Severus Snape. I just don't think Snape will be allowed back in the fold...and Snape knows it, which is why, to Harry, he looked more pale than usual. Just a thought Adam [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From helenhorsley at hotmail.com Sun Jan 18 22:07:54 2004 From: helenhorsley at hotmail.com (dorapye) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:07:54 -0000 Subject: thoughts about wands and broomsticks In-Reply-To: <20040117162048.15386.qmail@web25005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > I've been thinking about wands. In PS/SS when Harry's > trying out wands Ollivander tells him > "...you will never get such good results with another > wizards wand." p.64, PS, UK ed. > > In this case, why would Percy have given his wand to > Ron. Unless perhaps it had originally been passed on > to Percy from someone else, and he didn't actually get > his *own* wand till Ron started school. > > Maybe this is one of the reasons that Neville doesn't > do well - he uses his Father's wand. > > Also, I assume that a muggle or a squib wouldn't be > able to do anything with a wand, but a house elf > apparently could (GoF, when Winky is accused of > conjuring the Dark Mark at the World Cup). Can all > magical creatures potentially use wands I wonder? Are > wands mainly a conduit for magic, or do they contain a > lot of their own magic? > > I thought that the MoM might keep track of underage > magic through the wands, so if an underage > witch/wizard's *wand* does magic they get in trouble. > which might explain how the Weasley's can play > quidditch and Harry's occassional uncontrolled magic > isn't counted. > This would mean that children in magical families > could still do magic in the holidays if they used > someone else's wand (I know there was a discussion > about what happened to wands when the owner dies - was > there a conclusion?) > > On to broomsticks: can only witches and wizards ride > broomsticks? When Harry gets the firebolt (PoA) it > automatically hovers at the right height for him. Can > brooms sense whether someone is innately magical, in > other words if Filch got on one would it just fall to > the ground? > > My apologies if this has all been gone over already > (and for the babblyness). > Now dorapye: yeah, the whole 'Restriction of Underage Thingy' has bothered and puzzled me from time to time, but I drew my own, at least partly satisfactory, conclusions which you are quite welcome to add to/dismiss/argue against.... I go back to CoS when Harry first gets into trouble, not for using his wand, but for magic occurring in his home, which, since it is known he lives with Muggles, is assumed to be of his doing by MoM. They also appear to know when wandless magic occurs at his address - Aunt Marge in PoA. Move on to OotP, and the magic is occurring near his home, this time using his wand, 'in a Muggle-inhabited area'. Later, at the hearing, we learn that the MoM have always closely monitored Harry's address: "We have no record of any witch or wizards living in Little Whinging, other that Harry Potter,"said Madam Bones at once. "That sitation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events." This makes me feel it is more the *location* which is monitored and not Harry or Harry's wand....magic occurring in Privet Drive is deemed Harry's doing. This makes me wonder if Harry has been singled out particluarly for close scrutiny of his magic use during school holidays, ostensibly for his safety, though, by this point, the surveillance is being manipulated for Fudge and Umbridge's own ends. But maybe it is not just Harry who is put under the Ministry's watchful eye during the holidays, but all Hogwarts students who are *Muggle-born or living with Muggles*. Possibly Hermione gets the same (or similar) scrutiny as Harry. Children from wizard families are mor lucky. The Weasley children seem to get up to all sorts during their holidays without the Ministry getting involved. e.g.in CoS "...and small explosions from Fred and George's room were considered perfectly normal." (really, I need to look for other examples, and perhaps I will get onto this during the week, but I'd be grateful if anyone has any others they can think of) Yet they recognise the importance of avoiding getting caught doing magic at Harry's house, using lock-picking to free Harry's things from the cupboard under the stairs. Perhaps they are not afraid of using magic in their house, as the MoM would have no immedicate suspicion that the magic was not being done by one of the qualified wizards in the home. Also, since there are no Muggles also living at the address, perhaps the MoM doesn't bother to monitor the magic being done in the house, as it is not considered a risky area. Perhaps the MoM would expect the parents of the Hogwarts students to control their use of magic during the holidays in this particular low-risk situation. Then there is the flying car, which Ron tells Harry: 'Oh this doesn't count. We're only borrowing this, it's dad's, *we* didn't enchant it....' So does this explanation go some way to explain the broomsticks that apparently can be used during the holidays? (though I agree that magic is needed to make them hover, and probably control them). The next problem I'm forced to consider is DD's guarding of Harry, and the wizards and witches who must apparate and disapparate in and out of Privet Drive....if the MoM is monitoring *all* the magic being performed in or near Harry's address, are they not aware of DD's guard? Or was Mundungus's disapparation (it's very noisy, isn't it? And Harry recognises the noise immediately...if he had heard it before in Privet Drive, he would have remembered it and recalled it) just a one-off, as he was nipping off somewhere for a quick bit of dodgy dealing. Maybe DD has his people broom-it in and out of Little Whinging to dodge under the MoM's radar, knowing that the MoM keep a close eye on magic use in the area and will blame Harry for any magic done there as they have no record of other witches and wizards in the town. Harry does not get blamed for Dung's disapparation, though, so it must have escaped the MoM's attention. Maybe they picked it up, but assumed that it could not have been Harry, as he has not studied for and passed his Apparation Test...or would this not have been the perfect opportunity to pin another illegal activity on Harry? I think it must have escaped their attention...but why? Okay, there are my theories, but as you see, there are a few holes that need filling...any suggestions? dorapye From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Sun Jan 18 22:09:08 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:09:08 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89073 "Geoff: Am I being particularly thick tonight or are you suggesting that Ron is Tom Riddle's father?" I am suggestion that Ron/DDs attempts to prevent Tom's conception might have the effect of conceving him. After all, EVERYone belives that Voldemort is a half-breed. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 18 22:19:44 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:19:44 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89074 Geoff wrote: > I would be inclined to go for both Truth and Love being the "force > that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death". > > A few years ago, I used to have long debates with a younger friend on > the question of whether there were Basic Absolutes in life. He > maintained that there were not; morals and attitudes were flexible > and that he could decide whether something was right without > reference to a benchmark. I disagreed with him and still hold that > these Absolutes exist. To the end, I have capitalised Truth and Love > in my opening sentence and will do when I am referring to them in > this Absolute form but will use lower case letters when I am speaking > in general terms. > > It is true that truth is often the apparent prerogative of the winner > in a dispute but there is still a basic Truth which applies to our > existence and which is not the whim of the society around us and with > which people often prefer not to get too involved. As an aside, > Pilate's question "What is truth?" was not a question to which he > wanted an answer. When discussions on belief and Truth get too close > to home, a standard response is frequently to change the subject, > which was Pilate's ploy. Jesus made two profound observations about > the Truth; In John 8:31-32 "If you hold to my teaching you are really > my disciples. Then you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you > free." And, in John 14:6, he said "I am the way and the truth and the > life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Perhaps not > everyone might want to subscribe to that but surely we must all share > basic absolutes by which we accept that the world can operate. > > Turning to Love. The problem with "love" is that, certainly in the > English language, it is a word which has a wide range of meanings and > is often used very loosely. It can range from "I love chocolate ice- > cream" (which is really expressing a liking) to "I love you, my > darling" to the altruistic love which can show itself in self- > sacrifice ? Lily protecting Harry as an example. > > I have on two occasions at least referred to C.S.Lewis' "The Four > Loves" in which he writes on the four Greek words for love ? eros, > philos, agape and the one which always slips my memory(!); each one > looking at a different facet of love. The deepest love ? at least in > my opinion as a Christian ? is agape which is, I suppose, best > described as the altruistic, serving, love which is not seeking > anything in return but seeks only the best interest of its recipient. > Harry frequently wants the best for his friends; he wants to see them > kept from Voldemort's clutches; he wants things to go right for them. > Does he want anything in return? Maybe sometimes ? friendship, > support, honesty. But there are times when he acts for their best as > he sees it. Sometimes rashly, sometimes unthinkingly but he has been > known to put his life on the line for the benefit of others and so > would recognise the idea of agape. Voldemort, paralleled in a way by > Sauron, cannot even begin to see this. He uses people, discards them > when their usefulness is over, destroys them if they get in his way > and could not, even in his wildest dreams, envisage the idea of > giving without expectation of return or that anyone would think > differently to him. This is the failure which both JKR and JRRT point > up in their various personifications of evil. > > So I subscribe to the view that "the room" is involved with Love and > Truth and, hence, Voldemort cannot visualise the effect of what is > contained therein. Berit replies: One of the best posts I've read! I wholeheartedly agree with you Geoff :-) Truth and Love can be (and are) basic absolutes; objective as opposed to subjective entities. I'm not claiming any of us knows the whole Truth or really knows Love, but that doesn't mean it's not out there... Also, Love is not so much a question of subjective feelings and emotions as a governing PRINCIPLE. Real Love cannot be governed by feelings or the whims of emotions. True Love delivers where nothing else would. As Geoff's saying: Unconditional willingness to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others who might not even appreciate the sacrifice! Wouldn't put it past Rowling to have Harry risk his life for Snape in the end (or Snape saving Harry) just for the sake of it, even though the recipient is an ungrateful little/big brat who doesn't want to be saved :-) I get the subjective feeling when reading the HP books that this is also Rowling's view on Love and Truth :-) The way she in-between (and on) lines describes the difference of ethics and morals between Dumbledore and Voldemort. Dumbledore is clearly depicted as a man who won't use any means possible just because he can; he lives by clearly defined principles; two of which I am sure is Love and Truth. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From ktd7 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 22:42:31 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:42:31 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Geoff wrote: > > I would be inclined to go for both Truth and Love being the "force > > that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death". discussions on belief and Truth get too > close >> > One of the best posts I've read! I wholeheartedly agree with you > Geoff :-) Truth and Love can be (and are) basic absolutes; objective > as opposed to subjective entities. I'm not claiming any of us knows > the whole Truth or really knows Love, but that doesn't mean it's not > out there... Also, Love is not so much a question of subjective > feelings and emotions as a governing PRINCIPLE. Real Love cannot be > governed by feelings or the whims of emotions. True Love delivers > where nothing else would. As Geoff's saying: Unconditional > willingness to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others who might > not even appreciate the sacrifice! Wouldn't put it past Rowling to > have Harry risk his life for Snape in the end (or Snape saving Harry) > just for the sake of it, even though the recipient is an ungrateful > little/big brat who doesn't want to be saved :-) > > I get the subjective feeling when reading the HP books that this is > also Rowling's view on Love and Truth :-) The way she in-between (and > on) lines describes the difference of ethics and morals between > Dumbledore and Voldemort. Dumbledore is clearly depicted as a man who > won't use any means possible just because he can; he lives by clearly > defined principles; two of which I am sure is Love and Truth. > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html The concept of both Truth and Love being what is in the locked room is good, but the word used was HEART. In my opinion, this opens the definition to even more possibilities. I think the word HEART, with its many definitions, is the word she specifically used. Not the pumping organ in our bodies, but the word that means so many different things in English: Loyalty, Courage, Love, Truth, Unselfishness, Sympathy, Ambition, Generosity,even Intellect in some uses. All of these definitions can be covered with the word HEART. My pet theory is that Harry embodies the principles of all of the Houses: Gryffindor=Courage, Ravenclaw=Intellect, Hufflepuff=loyalty, Slytherin=Ambition. If Hogwarts is united so that all aspects of the 4 houses work together, they would be undefeatable when faced with those who have so few if any of these qualities. Karen From ktd7 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 23:00:35 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:00:35 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "estrom2000" wrote: > Honey wrote: > > Parenthetically, it seems to me that since Hagrid is now "cleared of > > all charges" and apparently eligible to complete his wizard > training, > > he could go to Olivander's and buy a new wand completely legally. > What > > do you think? > > > Nellie: In COS they couldn't even distinguish between a house- > elf's wanderless magic and Harry's wand magic, accusing him just > because it happened in his place of residence (like nobody could > visit him on vacations). How on earth do they then distinguish > between magic done by a parent's wand and a kid's wand in a wizarding > family? Or even more so, if a kid took his/her parent's or elder > sibling's wand to do some magic? Any thoughts? > > Nellie. Since we know the Weazly kids have used magic at home before reaching the age of 17 and haven't been arrested, warned, or otherwise "caught", I think it is clear that Harry has been carefully watched from the beginning for any misdeed that could lead to him being expelled or sent to Azkaban (back to the evil Fudge idea, again!) Ginny has used her "Bat-Bogey Cursey" on the twins, they all have flown brooms and enchanted cars, Gred and Forge have been working on their novelty magic items at home for a while. I expect that so much magic (including that from the older Weaslys) would make it difficult for the MoM to monitor their household. Since Filch is taking a "Quick Spell" course, it is probable that it is not illegal for him to do so, even though he hasn't graduated from Hogwarts or any other Wizarding school. This may be an inconsistency, or else there are those who have to use magic in secret, like Hagrid. I can't believe that Dumbledore isn't aware of Hagrid's wand in the umbrella. What's more, did the MoM not notice the use of magic when Hagrid went to get Harry? Sigh. One of these days, maybe JKR will explain all this! Karen From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 23:06:04 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:06:04 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror... or other Future Occupations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frost_indri" wrote: > > > > > > QUESTION: > > > If Harry is not an Auror after Hogwarts, what do you think he > will be? This is, of course, assuming that he isn't dead. > > > > sachmet96 > > > > I think he would prefer a quiet job. > > Or he might not work at all. He has lots of money so he might > decide to just enjoy life. > to Frost: What do you see him as? > > Frost: > Hmmm... I just don't see him having a quiet life. I think he'll go > on a book circuit, just like his role model: Gilderoy Lockheart! > > Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a sucker for bad jokes. > > In reality, such as it is, I think the most likely would be Curse > Breaker for Gringotts, or something along those lines. Just enough > excitement and mystery to keep him occupied, but no more of this > opposing the super-evil dark sorcerer stuff. > > The only thing is, after all this, I don't know how he's going to > be able to lead a low profile life without using a Fidelius charm. > > Frost bboy_mn responding from one of his old posts: The Most Obvious Career- I think Harry already has a perfectly good alternate career lined up for himself, he just doesn't realize it yet. My personal view is that Fred and George will not simply pay Harry back the G1,000 Tri-wiz money, partly because I don't think Harry will want to take it back. So Fred and George will just let it slide, and instead, unknow to Harry, make Harry a partner in what will certainly be a very large and successful company. By the time the fighting is all over, Fred and George will tell Harry that because of his investment in Weasley Enterprise (it's grown considerably so it's an 'Enterprise' group of companies now) he is now even richer than he was before. Given his reputation as a powerful wizard, public figure, national hero, and all-around nice guy, he will be a powerful asset to the company. Harry being thoroughly tired of people trying to kill him, will gladly accept the Weasley Twins invitation to become an active partner in the business. Good times and vast fortunes were had by all. Desire to be an Auror - in perspective- I think Harry has secretly pondered Auror as a profession on and off for a while, just as all boys ponder the exciting adventurous careers of astronaut, firefighter, policeman, secret agent 007, superhero, world explorer and adventurer, etc... etc... But to some extent, I think he sees it as cool in the Saturday afternoon matinee sort of way. He hasn't had to face the mundane and frequently boring reality of it yet. So, I too am convinced that Harry will have had his fill of Dark Wizard fighting by the time all this is over. Given his current wealth, the wealth I predict he will inherit from Sirius, and the wealth he will earn from Weasley's business enterprises, Harry will spend his life comfortably wealthy, engage in business ventures and charitable endeavors, and traveling the world with his friend and longtime companion, Ron Weasley (<-...insert companion appropraite to your own personal fan fiction persuasion). That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 18 23:07:06 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:07:06 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89078 Geoff wrote: > my opinion as a Christian ? is agape which is, I suppose, best > described as the altruistic, serving, love which is not seeking > anything in return but seeks only the best interest of its recipient. > Harry frequently wants the best for his friends; he wants to see them > kept from Voldemort's clutches; he wants things to go right for them. > Does he want anything in return? Maybe sometimes ? friendship, > support, honesty. But there are times when he acts for their best as > he sees it. Sometimes rashly, sometimes unthinkingly but he has been > known to put his life on the line for the benefit of others and so > would recognise the idea of agape. Voldemort, paralleled in a way by > Sauron, cannot even begin to see this. He uses people, discards them > when their usefulness is over, destroys them if they get in his way > and could not, even in his wildest dreams, envisage the idea of > giving without expectation of return or that anyone would think > differently to him. This is the failure which both JKR and JRRT point > up in their various personifications of evil. > > So I subscribe to the view that "the room" is involved with Love and > Truth and, hence, Voldemort cannot visualise the effect of what is > contained therein. Berit replies: By the way; just something I forgot in my other response to Geoff's post; the quote is so beautiful I have to include it: Quote: "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no records of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will pass away... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." (from the Bible: 1 Cor. 13) This is exactly the kind of speech old Dumbledore could have held, isn't it? And note the similarities between the Bible's definition of Love and DD's "speech" about the mysterious power in that special room at the MoM: Quote: "It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature...Perhaps the most mysterious of the many subjects for study... In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." (GoF p. 743) In Harry's worst moment, when he was possessed by Voldemort, he was beyond faith and hope, but "The greatest of them all", Love, prevailed and saved Harry... Quote:" ...I [Dumbledore] acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act..." (GoF p. 739) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From rredordead at aol.com Sun Jan 18 23:07:48 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:07:48 -0000 Subject: Question about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89079 > Christy wrote: > My question however is, what makes somebody think that Remus Lupin > could have been in Slytherin? The only way this theory makes sense is if you say the Hat simply put him there cause it needed to fill a > space (A theory I don't buy, or else why bother putting any > personalities to the houses at all. I doubt JKR just put it there > cause it sounded cute). > Could somebody explain to me what evidence would lead to Lupin being a Slytherin? Mandy here: I don't have any specific evidence, certainly not canon, but the big reason for me is the fact that he is a Werewolf. Granted this is not by choice, and was something that was inflicted upon him as a child. But nevertheless Remus Lupin becomes, once a month, is what is described in FBAWTFT as having a XXXXX to the power of 16 danger classification! The highest and most dangerous of all beasts. Werewolves actively seek out humans, over anything else, as their pray. Again, Lupin has no control over this affliction but that is one of the reasons I would place him in Slytherin. Slytherin's use any means to achieve their goals, they are all about self advancement at the expense of others, which is exactly what Werewolf/Lupin is about when he becomes the beast. Werewolf/Lupin will do anything necessary to get attain what he needs and wants, which unfortunately is killing human beings. I personally adore Lupin and think he is a good man and would not like to see him in Slytherin, but I do think that it will make for a much more interesting story line than if all of the Marauder's were in Gryffindor. And I will say again here, that not all the Slytherin's are EVIL, just as not all Gryiffindor's are GOOD. The world is not that black and white and neither is JKR's and Harry Potter's universe. Cheers Mandy, who is not wed to the idea of all the Marauder being in Slytherin, but is convinced they are not all in Gryffindor. From rredordead at aol.com Sun Jan 18 23:14:19 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:14:19 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89080 I selected 'Other' for Narcissa Malfoy. Being Draco's mother she is going to resurface in one of the next two books. Either for helping Draco or the Order out of a sticky situation or being an old school friend of Lily's. (I have absolutely no canon for that, just a big desire to see it happen.) Cheers Mandy From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Jan 18 23:27:26 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:27:26 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89081 I selected "Other" for Theodore Nott. He is a Death Eater's Son, who was not part of the Inqusitorial Squad. This has to mean something. I also suspect Griselda Marchbanks might play an important role regarding the Goblins. And there's Golgomath, The Gurg of the Giants. Hickengruendler From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 23:29:41 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:29:41 -0000 Subject: Time travel is dangerous! (part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89082 > Chris: > > People have wondered about Ron, if he is a time-displaced > dumbledore, not stopping Voldemort while he's still building up > power. Probabuly - Ron acted to prevent LVs mother from becoming > pregnant, but ended up sleeping with her himself and getting her in > the family way. > > > > Time may be harder to alter than we think. > > Geoff: > Am I being particularly thick tonight or are you suggesting that Ron > is Tom Riddle's father? > > The development of your theory would be /most/ interesting. Neri: Regardless of the juicy stuff, there is certainly a nice time-travel theory here: It is possible to change the past, but the course of events is resistant to such changes, and in the long run they don't have any effect. Kind of the opposite of the butterfly effect. You don't have to assume LV's father was Ron!DD. The idea is that with any father we get a Tom Riddle. Only his name would not be Riddle, I guess. But you can even manage a scenario where Tom's name *is* Riddle. That's easy: Riddle the father meets another witch and sires Tom with her. The other witch will turn out to be also Slytherin's descendent, of course. >From the point of view of Ron!DD, however, this is not very different from the theory in which changing the past is always for the worse. Both mean that he can change events but is always foiled. I discussed the problems with this in part 2 of the original post. If I try to recap the problem with the whole Ron!DD theory, it is like this: If Ron!DD doesn't change the past because it is impossible/dangerous/useless (pick your favorite), then what is the point of DD being Ron in the first place? It doesn't advance the plot in any way, only makes Ron!DD very frustrated. If, on the other hand, Ron!DD does manage to change the past, then why did all the sad events in the books take place, and what does JKR do with the events of the alternative history (the one "before" the events were changed). I doesn't help that, according to canon, Ron knows many things about current and past events, and that DD is so powerful. Neri From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 18 23:50:45 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:50:45 -0000 Subject: Locked room poll Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89083 First, I don't believe the answer's obvious; if it were, we would never have had a poll. Second, I voted for love, as being the nearest thing to obvious here, based on what Dumbledore told Harry about Lily and her sacrifice back in PS. However, I want to suggest a possibility not in the poll: life. (I understand that if it's not in the poll then it hasn't been suggested here before.) Life is the obvious(!) counterpoint to death, with which Dumbledore compares the contents of the room. Whichever poll answer one selects, it is interesting to speculate as to the actual *contents* of the room. The room devoted to time contained devices to measure and manipulate it, but not Time itself, whatever that is; the room (presumably) devoted to death contained a single gateway (presumably) leading to death but does not contain Death itself, whatever that is. Thoughts? David From jjpandy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 01:54:59 2004 From: jjpandy at yahoo.com (jjpandy) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:59 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror... or other Future Occupations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89084 >bboy_mn wrote:> > So, I too am convinced that Harry will have had his fill of Dark > Wizard fighting by the time all this is over. Given his current > wealth, the wealth I predict he will inherit from Sirius, and the > wealth he will earn from Weasley's business enterprises, Harry will > spend his life comfortably wealthy, engage in business ventures and > charitable endeavors, and traveling the world with his friend and > longtime companion, Ron Weasley (<-...insert companion appropraite to > your own personal fan fiction persuasion). > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_mn my reply: I would hope that Harry would put his energy and money into programs for young orphaned wizards and witches to keep them on the path to an honest good life! Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville could take them on trips to see dragons and the ancient tombs. JJPandy From jjpandy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 01:58:04 2004 From: jjpandy at yahoo.com (jjpandy) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:58:04 -0000 Subject: thoughts about wands and broomsticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gartzen88" wrote: > anneli lucas wrote: > > I thought that the MoM might keep track of underage > > magic through the wands, so if an underage > > witch/wizard's *wand* does magic they get in trouble. > > which might explain how the Weasley's can play > > quidditch and Harry's occassional uncontrolled magic > > isn't counted. > > This would mean that children in magical families > > could still do magic in the holidays if they used > > someone else's wand (I know there was a discussion > > about what happened to wands when the owner dies - was > > there a conclusion?) > > GartZen: > > Well... Harry is blamed for Dobby's magic, so this can't be right... > > That was actully all I had to say ;) > > - GartZen I assumed the underage magic penalty was more serious if the magic was witnessed by muggles. JJPandy From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 02:23:22 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:23:22 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "estrom2000" wrote: > Honey wrote: > > Parenthetically, it seems to me that since Hagrid is now "cleared of > > all charges" and apparently eligible to complete his wizard > training, > > he could go to Olivander's and buy a new wand completely legally. > What > > do you think? > > > Nellie: > I've also thought about it - it seems strange that although Hagrid's > name was cleared, he didn't get a new wand (at least we never see him > using one, including during the atttack at the end of OTTP), > especially as he became a teacher at Hogwarts right away. > Maybe there is a rule that he has to pass some exams, like OWLs, to > be qualified to use it freely, like other adults, and since he was > expelled in his 3rd year he has to learn a lot and, of course, he > can't go to classes now that he's in his sixties. I guess there is > no actual law about who can become a professor at school, but there > are obviously elaborate laws about wand use in the magical community. Diana: I'm not sure why Hagrid didn't go buy a new wand in book 3 (he could of) but in Book 4 we learn that Hagrid is part-giant. Giants are not allowed to have wands so I doubt they would let Hagrid buy a new one after Goblet. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 19 02:45:48 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:45:48 -0000 Subject: 4Houses/Lily'sEyes/DiagonMuggles/TwinsMap/SevDeceivesLuciu/Warlocks/Genetics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89087 Kneasy, I *adore* the phrase 'Nice Sphinxy!' My nominee for favorite line in the whole series so far: ""Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." New vampire theory: Snape is not a vampire, but Harry & Co will be misled into thinking he is one. I haven't figured out yet how that is relevant to the plot. LizVega2 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88629 : << Assuming the Marauders were all in the same house, and assuming, that each house has five boys/girls (Sorting Hat has to 'quarter' them all when they get sorted- OOP) who was their roommate, as yet unmentioned? Harry, Ron, Dean, Seamus, and Neville. That's five. James, Sirius, Remus, uugh-Peter (I really can't stand even thinking about that horrible -yuch-anyway), that's still just four. >> Are there Gryffindor boys in the twins' year besides the twins themselves and Lee Jordan? Are there Gryffindor girls in Harry's year besides Hermione, Parvati, and Lavender? Either there aren't always five boys and five girls, or some characters go unmentioned for five books so far. Sachmet96 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88631 : << silver is a very soft material and just not suited for weapons of any kind as it would dent as soon as it hit/was hit by most other weapons/things. So it is actually quite useless. >> Not if you made the weapon out of silver and THEN cast a spell on it to make it harder than diamond but not brittle. (As Arya said in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88689 ) << But what's interesting is that the house colours of Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor have silver, gold and bronze in them. As far as I can remember gold is the softest of the three, bronze the strongest. Hufflepuff doesn't have any metallic colour. >> Hufflepuff is yellow and black. In heraldry, gold, bronze, and yellow are all the same tincture, the 'metal' named Or (gold). I kind of like the three Or against one Argent (silver) symbolism of the exclusion of Slytherin, altho' I much dislike the win-place-show-nothing of gold (medal), silver (medal), bronze (medal), and no (medal). There must be some (non-heraldic) connection between the metal iron and the color black, as ironsmiths are called blacksmiths, as tinsmiths are called whitesmiths. Julie Howard wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88691 : << I have been looking for a connection between the deaths of James and Lily and the continuous emphasis on Lily/Harry's eyes. Lily excelled at charms. Can this be done through eyes, without wand? >> BBC Newsround interview (Newsround is Lizo, yes?) http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/arti cles/2000/fall00-bbc-newsround.html << Q: Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like -- A: Why do you want to know this? Q: I just vaguely wondered. A: Why? Q: Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lilly Potter's eyes? A: Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more. Very clever. >> Julie Howard wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88692 : << How are Hermione's parents able to go to Diagon Alley? >> As Muggles, they can't *see* The Leaky Cauldron, but presumably they can close their eyes and allow their daughter to take them by the hand and lead them through it. (Oh, that's what Berit said in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88697 ) Julie Howard wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88845 : << I know where they got the map, but does anyone know how they learned to use it? That is what I find intriguing. >> I bet there are ways to reverse-engineer magic spells and artifacts -- I bet part of what Bill does as a curse-breaker is to reverse-engineer the curse on an object, to find out how it was made and what it's supposed to do, so he can figure out how to remove it or inactivate its trigger. There may be classes in sixth and seventh year about basic methods of reverse-engineering magic, but I think Fred and George learned how to reverse-engineer on their own, and they reverse-engineered the Map. My beta-reader said that 'reverse- engineer' (I had used the term in a fic) is too Muggle a phrase, but I haven't been able to figure out what phrase the wizards would use instead. Meri August wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88909 : << what really interests me in this situation is how someone as influential in the ministry as Lucius Malfoy could not have known about Snape being a traitor of the DEs. >> Speculation: Snape told Lucius: "We all did what we had to do to save ourselves. You claimed to have been under the Imperius Curse and Karkaroff named names. And *I* talked old Dumbledore into believing that I was on his side." Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfor Grownups/message/88774 : << The narrator (or one of the Weasleys?) keeps referring to Perkins, the wizard who works with Arthur in the Muggle Artifacts office, as an "old warlock." No other character, IIRC, is referred to by that term. I always thought a warlock was just a male witch, but JKR seems to use "wizard" in that sense. So what is a warlock by JKR's definition and how is he different from other wizards? >> I long held that 'warlock' was a title meaning an elected representative to a wizarding legislature council. If Perkins was a politician who retired or was voted out of office, his old colleagues still in office might well give him a job that didn't require him to work very hard, and where his nominal supervisor would be unable to give him a bad annual review, which could explain why he isn't much help to Arthur. Also, if the various 'warlocks' whom Harry sees rowdily drinking Firewhiskey and arguing about Transfiguration were current or retired legislators, they could have immunity from being arrested for little things like public drunkenness or disturbing the peace. I said, the Saxon meaning of "warlock = oath breaker" would apply quite well to the wizarding equivalent of a Congressman or M.P. However, I'm not clear on Ernie saying in CoS: "I might tell you that you can trace my family back through nine generations of witches and warlocks and my blood's as pure as anyone's, so -". He might be bragging that ALL his male ancestors were legislators, but one would have thought that some of the female ancestors would have been as well. More on my theory that 'warlock' was a title meaning an elected representative to a wizarding legislature council (so that the medieval Wizards' Council, precursor to the Ministry of Magic as we were told in the schoolbooks, could perfectly well be called the Warlocks' Council). There would be representatives to the International Warlock Convention of 1289 (mentioned in CoS), and to the International [Con]Federation of Wizards/Warlocks, making the term 'Warlock' as part of their name appropriate. ("International [Con]Federation of Wizards/Warlocks" -- I think all those names have appeared in canon, and I think they all mean the same organization: International Federation of Wizards, pages 90 and 120 of UK OoP International Federation of Warlocks, pages 30 and 128 of UK OoP International Confederation of Wizards, on DD's letterhead in SS and GoF ch.17 International Confederation of Warlocks' Statute of Secrecy in Mafalda Hopkirk's letter in CoS.) While I was at it, I proposed that the Wizards' Council was earlier named the Witchingameet, based on the name 'Witangamot' of the Saxon parliament before the Norman Conquest. Wizengamot clearly is named from the same source, so I patted myself on the back for an "almost right" prediction. Even tho' the Wizengamot seems to function more as judiaciary than legislature. There's a bit in OoP where Lupin says: "Dumbledore's 'been voted out of the Chairmanship of the International Confederation of Wizards... they've demoted him from chief Warlock on the Wizengamot... and they're talking about taking away his Order of Merlin, First Class, too.' If you remember Dumbledore's official Headmaster letterhead in PS/SS, his name was followed by "Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, International Confed. of Wizards". There has long been discussion of what those titles could possibly mean. So now I think Supreme Mugwump is the title of the 'chairman' of the International [Con]federation of Wizards/Warlocks. And Warlock means 'member of the Wizengamot', and 'Chief Warlock' means Chairman of the Wizengamot. Tigerpatronus (I love that name!) wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88919 : << There are three alleles (form of a gene, like blue or brown eyes) that you can have for the ApoE gene. The most common allele for the ApoE gene in the US and globally is ApoE3. The "3" is the important part. A less common but seemingly protective allele is ApoE2. (snip) he ApoE4 gene is the "bad" one. >> Where is ApoE1? Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88595 : << However Slytherins may boast that they restrict themselves to the pureblood as partners, it is hardly canon that they actually do so. There are many indications that they do not. Riddle's ancestry is mixed, there are all those inconvenient relatives not listed on the Black family tree, and all those Slytherins who seem to resemble hags or trolls. >> I believe that the purebloodist snobs don't have an objection to crossing with respectable magical beings. Pure magic 'blood' is far more important to them than pure human 'blood'. However, I don't understand how trolls can be respectable when giants aren't. Julie Howard wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88693 : << 3. At what point is a wizard a pureblood? >> In CoS, Ernie Macmillan said: "I might tell you that you can trace my family back through nine generations of witches and warlocks and my blood's as pure as anyone's, so -" which suggests that nine generations without a Muggle could be the definition of 'pureblood'. I suspect JKR's simple term 'Halfblood' covers a big collection of words like 'mulatto', 'quadroon', and 'octaroon', with words distinguishing between ancestors who were born to two Muggles and those born to one Muggle and one witch/wizard. I suspect that someone who can trace back three generations (parents, grand-parents, great-grand-parents) without a Muggle (some listies have suggested the word 'full-blood') are socially acceptable to purebloods as long as they stay OUT of the UPPER CLASS. << How is magic passed down genetically? 1. It cannot be Dominant, given that there are squibs and mudbloods. 2. It cannot be complete recessive, given that there are halfbloods. 4. Is magic genetic at all? >> Here comes my usual rant on that subject: Any purely genetic system would have some Muggle siblings of magic children. If magic was a dominant gene M, many wizards and witches would be Mm and if they had children with a Muggle mm, half the children would be Mm and half mm, so half the children would be Muggles. That includes Ksnidget's suggestion that the dominant gene M is one that was created by the number of repeating elements becoming greater each generation until first it becomes long enough that the phenotype is somewhat abnormal and then keeps getting longer, making the condition worse every generation. We can account for magic children being more than the predicted percentage by assuming non-genetic mechanisms ... maybe a non-magic embryo cannot implant in a magic womb, so only wizards but not witches could have non-magic children ... that would work with magic being either m or M; mm womb rejects mM embryo because of its alien M gene or Mm womb and MM womb reject mm embryo because it lacks M gene ... if magic is m, it could be that mm only marries Mm, never MM, become MM just 'smell wrong' to be attracted to, or m is partially expressed by Mm being more open-minded and whimsical and thus more compatible to magic person. **** In my theory, the inheritance of magic is partly genetic and partly magical. I suggest that in general, there are a whole bunch of pairs of recessive genes that usually combine to make a person magical. How many of these pairs a person is double-recessive for, and which ones, would influence or control how strong their magic power is, and what forms of magic they are most talented at. I think it is more likely that if magic were one gene-pair, that magic would be the RECESSIVE allele. Thus, any magic person must be double-recessive, thus any child of two magical parents would be magic (mm * mm = mm, as you know). The exception, non-magic children of two magic parents, Squibs, are extremely rare; to me, extremely rare MIGHT mean once in a generation. Rare enough that they could all be the result of a birth defect or mistaken paternity. Heterozygous people (Mm) would be Muggles, but two heterozygous people would have children in the famous pattern 25% MM, 25% Mm, 25% Mm, 25%mm = 75% Muggle and 25% Magic. That would account for there being quite a few magic children of Muggle parents, and some of them being siblings. *** I agree with those who say that the wizarding world had a 'birth dearth' during the Voldemort Reign of Terror (which I like to call The Bad Years), but not that that caused Hogwarts to have fewer students born in those years. In fact, the classes born in those years might have been LARGER than usual This is because of a theory of inheritance of magic which I came up with in a thread on that subject. In my theory, the inheritance of magic is partly genetic and partly magical. I suggest that in general, there are a whole bunch of pairs of recessive genes that usually combine to make a person magical. How many of these pairs a person is double-recessive for, and which ones, would influence or control how strong their magic power is, and what forms of magic they are most talented at. But I also suggest that there is also a Magic that keeps the total number of wizarding people constant. When a wizard or witch dies, their magic goes to the next suitable child born in their area. Suitability would be a combination of the genes and of being surrounded by magic at the time. (A fetus in a witch's womb is the most possible surrounded by magic! So the child of a witch and a Muggle is almost as likely to be magic as the child of a witch and a wizard) The longer the magic goes searching for a suitable host, the geographically wider an area it searches, and also it becomes less picky about suitabilty, such as choosing Muggle-born children who at least have SOME of the right genes, even tho' there is no magic around them at all. This theory also explains Squibs, as children of a wizard and a witch who were born at a moment when more wizarding babies were being born than wizarding folk were dying. THEREFORE, if two Squibs marry, their children would have the right genes, and if the Squib couple lived (unhappily and in poverty) in the wizarding world, their children would have been somewhat surrounded by magic, and therefore children of Squibs who remain in the wizarding world are likely to be non-Squib. Squibs who move to the Muggle world, make a life there and marry a Muggle, would probably have children who were Muggles, but with the genes to be very attractive to magic looking for a Muggle-born person to reside in. This theory also implies that there would be more Muggle-borns than usual during The Bad Years. That would be an ironic result of Voldemort's attempt to eliminate Muggle-borns! But, as you said, more wizarding folk than usual were dying during The Bad Years, because of all the murders, and fewer were being born than usual, because of parents reluctant to bring children into such a dreadful world. Thus, quite a number of witches and wizards died with no wizarding child being born at their death-time, so their magic went looking for a Muggle-born host. Thus, more 'Mudbloods'. That could explain why wizarding folk from Bill Weasley's age on down are more familiar with Muggle things than their parents are, and take it for granted to wear Muggle-style clothes: they learned it from their classmates. A further implication is that a post-Harry Potter Day wizarding baby boom may have resulted in an epidemic of Squibs. From BrwNeil at aol.com Sun Jan 18 22:33:13 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (brwneil) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:33:13 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89088 Poor Arthur has struggled to support his family in his insignificant ministry job probably since soon after leaving Hogwarts. He seems to receive little respect, most certainly not from the Malfoys or even his son, Percy, who is currently licking Fudge's boots. Does OotP give clues of a new prestigious job? Current wisdom says that if Hermione says something, believe it. Hermione is most often right. If Ron says something, forget it because he is never right unless he is joking. Ron joked in OotP that Gryffindor had as much chance of winning the Quidditch Cup as his dad did of becoming Minister of Magic. Gryffindor did in fact win the Quidditch Cup. Could the poor, honest, Muggle loving Arthur have a political future ahead of him? Neil From ada_tam at hotpop.com Mon Jan 19 01:24:00 2004 From: ada_tam at hotpop.com (ainira999) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:24:00 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - important?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89089 Hi all, My name is Ada. I'm 20, studying psychology and living in Sydney. Anyhoo, I've noticed a number of references to Fawkes, DD's phoenix, and am wondering whether he has some kind of hidden significance: - Both Harry's and LV's wands contain Fawkes' feather in it. - When Harry first meets Fawkes, DD emphasises the word "faithful" when describing him (Ch. 155, CoS). Also, phoenixes have a red and gold plummage - interestingly, the colours of Gryffindor. - Fawkes comes to Harry's aid in the Chamber of secrets, in delivering the sorting hat as well as pecking out the basilisk's eyes (Ch. 17, CoS). There's also quite a bit written about the phoenix's song: "The music was growing louder. It was eerie, spine-tingling, unearthly; it lifted the hair on Harry's scalp and made his heart feel as though it was swelling to twice its normal size. Then, as the music reached such a pitch that Harry felt it vibrating inside his own ribs, flames erupted at the top of the nearest pillar." -- p. 232, CoS (UK version), Bloomsbury, paperback - Harry hears phoenix song during Priori Incantatem in GoF, and once again, much is written about the music. I find the idea that the music "speaking" to him is interesting... "It was the sound of hope to Harry. [snip] it was almost as though a friend was speaking in his ear ... Don't break the connection" -- p. 576, GoF (UK version), Bloomsbury, paperback - Fawkes seems to give Harry strength to tell DD and Sirius what happened when he was portkeyed to the graveyard, etc. "The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. [snip] Harry felt as though a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening him." -- p. 603, GoF (UK version), Bloomsbury, paperback - The group dedicated to fight against LV is named Order of the *Phoenix* - When Harry et al. were in the DoM, Fawkes swooped in front of Dumbledore to take the full blast of LV's attack. Anway, I'm wondering if any of you think if there is some sort of hidden significance to Fawkes. And in mythology, are basilisks and phoenix's natural enemies? Ada From ixchelmala at mac.com Mon Jan 19 02:34:34 2004 From: ixchelmala at mac.com (ixchelmala) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:34:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Knight 2 King In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04F73703-4A28-11D8-BDC8-000A2790EB46@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89090 Geoff Bannister wrote: > The knight in chess has moves which are totally different to the > other pieces, quirky, often unpredictable and allow the knight to get > into areas of a chess game which no other piece can reach. It is > perhaps a maverick piece in that situation. > > Ron is certainly quirky and unpredictable. Considering the chess game > as a metaphor for the Second War, will this element of his nature be > of value, will he indeed be a maverick who gets into areas of the > action which no one else reaches or am I trying to draw parallels > where none exist? ixchelmala: I believe you are drawing the exact parallels of what will be revealed more blatantly in the coming books. Ron getting the position as Keeper is one of the most blatant signs of this, though his job is to block the Quaffle from scoring points, it's a job no one else can do save the person who plays Keeper. I know they are samplings that show this in the previous books, and that I will have to research and document it. Thank you for reading though all of the bits we've presented as well as the threads, it's taken me a heck of a time to get to your response and I'm happy to see input from those like you who are in the know of chess. From ixchelmala at mac.com Mon Jan 19 02:58:54 2004 From: ixchelmala at mac.com (ixchelmala) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:58:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6AD22165-4A2B-11D8-BDC8-000A2790EB46@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89091 suehpfan wrote: > I find the Ron!DD theory fascinating and have been following the > thread since it began. In what I have read, no one has referenced > the watch that DD wears. JKR has refered to it at least once (it > seems to me) in every book. Whether Ron is Dumbledore or not, there > is something going on with time and Dumbledore has the answer sitting > on his wrist. ixchelmala: I'm just catching up on the threads here on HPFGUs and I wanted to pipe in on your observation. Though I've seen lots of recent conversation about DD's planet-watch, I pointed it out to lizardlaugh when we were writing up our theory but that's where it stayed for a bit. The thing of it is there are other planetary references throughout the series, including the planet room in OotP. We think there is a connection between the fact that all those rooms having a time theme attached to them and DD's watch, and the missing day from when Voldemort went down to when Harry arrived at #4 Privet Drive. I've looked for another planet-watch refrence in the series, but there is nothing aside from planets mentioned in Divination, Astronomy, the Centaurs, and the planet room Ginny and Ron get chased into. If there are more, I'm missing them at the moment and I'm in the process of re-reading the entire series with post-its. The importance is there, otherwise I doubt JKR would mention it. From barbienut75 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 19 03:23:52 2004 From: barbienut75 at earthlink.net (barbienut75) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:23:52 -0000 Subject: I have a very good question. About Scabbers. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89092 This may be out dated, but it just popped into my head. The first spell that Ron cast on Scabbers, Sunshine daisy's Buttermellow.....ect. Do you think it may not have worked because he was really Peter? From topfor at aol.com Mon Jan 19 03:10:59 2004 From: topfor at aol.com (smtopliff) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:10:59 -0000 Subject: the Malfoys at the Quiddich World Cup Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89093 In response to discussion regarding the Malfoys at the World Cup: First, given that the Malfoys are status-conscious, it would seem to reason that they travelled in the most conspicuously opulent means possible--the Concorde of transport in the wizarding world. Or, if that was not allowed given anti-Muggle regulations (which Lucius would have paid handsomely to override if possible) then they would have arranged to reside at the most lavish tent available. Remember, it can look like a pup tent on the outside and house the Taj Mahal on the inside. Second, I do not belive for a minute that Draco knew nothing about what his parents were up to in the field. He was probably told to go enjoy the social atmosphere with his friends (and children of fellow Death-Eaters) and to make himself scarce in case there was any disturbance. I am certain Lucius would have told Draco to stay out of the way and out of sight--of course, if he wanted a good view of the "festivities," then it would be best for him to station himself at the edge of the forest where he would be in no danger but get a good view of what happens to Muggles when the gangs all together, as it were. Lastly, Narcissa seems too haughty to partake in such a vulgar expression of Muggle dislike to parade around under a sheet hiding her face. She would have been the one to host whatever gathering of Death Eaters there was (i.e. the cocktail party prior to the Muggle attack) and then stay at the tent while her husband went out to have some fun and vent his anger or whatever. She is most likely the money that Lucius Malfoy married to give him the prominence in the wizarding community, and has the ambition and wherewithal and talent to be a successful person, probably the result of fear, bribery and blackmail. The means justify the end, as it were. Just my opinion. .s. From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Mon Jan 19 04:11:10 2004 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:11:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] the Malfoys at the Quiddich World Cup Message-ID: <122.2a721540.2d3cb2de@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89094 In a message dated 1/18/2004 10:44:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, topfor at aol.com writes: > > Second, I do not belive for a minute that Draco knew nothing about > what his parents were up to in the field. He was probably told to go > enjoy the social atmosphere with his friends (and children of fellow > Death-Eaters) and to make himself scarce in case there was any > disturbance. I am certain Lucius would have told Draco to stay out > of the way and out of sight--of course, if he wanted a good view of > the "festivities," then it would be best for him to station himself > at the edge of the forest where he would be in no danger but get a > good view of what happens to Muggles when the gangs all together, as > it were. Cassie: That, and it wouldn't look to kid if Lucius Malfoy's son was admist the supporters, cheering his father on. Everyone else was sending their children into the woods. It would have been odd for Malfoy not to. Makes it look like he was trying to protect his son. > S: > Lastly, Narcissa seems too haughty to partake in such a vulgar > expression of Muggle dislike to parade around under a sheet hiding > her face. She would have been the one to host whatever gathering of > Death Eaters there was (i.e. the cocktail party prior to the Muggle > attack) and then stay at the tent while her husband went out to have > some fun and vent his anger or whatever. She is most likely the > money that Lucius Malfoy married to give him the prominence in the > wizarding community, and has the ambition and wherewithal and talent > to be a successful person, probably the result of fear, bribery and > blackmail. The means justify the end, as it were. Cassie again: Of course we have no first hand knowledge since Harry doesn't directly encounter the party of DEs, but it is suggested in canon that they were drunk. Now, I personally can't imagine Lucius getting so incredibly bombed that he risks loosing his respectable face and his wife just letting him skip off to play with the muggles. Maybe he just decided to 'go with the flow'. Still...it seems like an odd and stupid move on his part. And why did the DE's have their hooded robes and masks with them? Do they always have them JIC You-Know-Who calls? As for "She is most likely the money that Lucius Malfoy married to give him the prominence in the wizarding community, and has the ambition and wherewithal and talent to be a successful person, probably the result of fear, bribery and blackmail. The means justify the end, as it were. " (s) I disagree. I don't see how this is 'most likely'. I gather that Malfoy is an old, respected, pureblood name (as is Black, excluding some members of the family). I always pictured it as money marrying money. And it isn't only money that gives Malfoy his status. He also seems to be quite the polititian. You don't buy a silver tongue ^_~ We don't know too much about Narcissa to draw conclusions, I think. She seems like a faithful wife (don't know if that's good or bad) Though, she is part of one of my new favorite quotes: "Ah, think of the possibilities," said Ron dreamily "It would've been so easy to push Malfoy off a glacier and make it look like an accident...shame his mother likes him..." ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 05:10:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:10:43 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89095 Once again, slowly catching up . . . Steve (bboy) wrote: << How many people do you think we will find who agree with US that Percy and Ron are very much a like? >> The first time I suggested this (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38730) I managed to convince a few people, so I know they're out there. Catlady responded: They are somewhat alike, both desiring prestigious accomplishments, but they are different in at least two ways: Percy is hard-working and Ron has a sense of humor. I agree that Ron isn't all that much like the Twins. Debbie: Ron and Percy also share a tendency to embarrass easily and to hide things they might get teased about (Percy conducts his relationship with Penelope in secret; Ron practices Quidditch in secret). Catlady again: Do you think the personalities go with the body types: Bill is tall and thin like Percy and Ron, do you think he was an approval seeker? Charlie is wide and muscular like Fred and George, do you think he was big-time scofflaw and a bit of a bully? Debbie: It's hard to tell with Bill and Charlie because both are adults; a lot of maturation may have occurred since their Hogwarts days. In the little we see of Charlie, he debates Quidditch teams and tactics, pokes fun at his mother's maternal fears for Harry's safety, and failed to pass his Apparation test the first time around. And he didn't fuss at all about smuggling an illegal dragon out of Hogwarts. So yes, he fits the Gred and Forge mold much better than the Percy one. Bill is a former Head Boy, which is surely what Molly wanted for him, placing Bill squarely into the Percy/Ron camp. I expect Molly is pleased with his Gringotts job as well, which seems to have a bit of the prestige that working getting a job with a Big 4 accounting firm might in the muggle world; we know that Fleur, a good enough witch to be a Triwizard champion, also got a job there. While Bill can be playful at times (for example, when he and Charlie played duelling tables early in GoF), he also echoes Percy in that a high percentage of his appearances involve him engaging in serious discussion of some topic or another (the Dark Mark in ch. 9 of GoF, Percy's problems with the Ministry in ch. __, and his conversation with Lupin about goblins at Grimmauld Place in OOP). That ponytail and earring seem to be recent acquisitions. Catlady continued: Ginny's personality in OoP seems more like Fred and George than like Percy or even Ron, does that mean she'll grow up to be short and dumpy like Molly? Of course, in one's teens, that body type can be more cute (short) and voluptuous (dumpy). If so, how did Molly get a personality transplant? And Arthur get comfortable with no one admiring him, no one approving of him except himself, his wife, and perhaps Dumbledore? Debbie: The body-type theory doesn't seem to apply to the parents, or to Ginny. Kevin Lano wrote of the Twins: I thought the issue of the twins was particularly interesting, at first glance it might seem that JKR does treat them as interchangeable, but actually there is a marked difference in personalities -- Fred is the more extrovert, aggressive, the initiator of things like the bet, he's the one that did nasty things to Ron as a child, etc, whereas George is a bit more laid back and mature (it's George that Harry hands the prize winnings to, which may indicate that Harry also senses this). Despite appearing identical, people seem to have no trouble telling them apart when they're near them (except Molly at the start of PS!). Debbie: Agreed. Fred is the initiator in their most aggressive endeavors, with George providing the conscience. But to outsiders they *always* act in concert and support each other, such that their differences seem like two sides of a single person a la Gollum than truly separate individuals. The best example of this is the conversation overheard by the Trio in the Owlery in GoF. Fred is ready to send off the letter to Ludo Bagman, while George worries that they're engaging in blackmail. However, when Ron asks who they were blackmailing, George leaps to the defense, claiming that he had been joking, and the letter goes out. The Sargeant Majorette says: There's another thing: in OoP, it's *George* who says that he thinks they're "well shut of" Percy. Given that George seems to be the more mature of the two, doesn't this seem like a hint that Percy really *is* really Evil? Debbie: George was wearing an "uncharacteristically ugly" look at the time, which seemed to signal that George wasn't acting in his usual "good twin" role. If Percy did turn out to be evil, I would be extremely disappointed, and even more so if the twins' antics continue to be presented in the same positive light as in OOP. Percy's estrangement from the family has been building for a very long time, and as I've suggested before, I think some of the blame for Percy's alienation belongs with the twins' merciless teasing, which seems to have made him cling harder than ever to his academic accomplishments as a sign of his worth to the family. Other than Molly, only Bill has seemed truly sympathetic to Percy and his problems. Perhaps it's significant that we don't know Bill's views on Percy's separation; I think that's where Percy's lifeline is. Debbie who's becoming more and more enamored of Catlady's once-a-week approach From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Mon Jan 19 04:49:04 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:49:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > Since we know the Weazly kids have used magic at home before > reaching the age of 17 and haven't been arrested, warned, or > otherwise "caught", I think it is clear that Harry has been > carefully watched from the beginning for any misdeed that could lead > to him being expelled or sent to Azkaban (back to the evil Fudge > idea, again!) Ginny has used her "Bat-Bogey Cursey" on the twins, > they all have flown brooms and enchanted cars, Gred and Forge have > been working on their novelty magic items at home for a while. I > expect that so much magic (including that from the older Weaslys) > would make it difficult for the MoM to monitor their household. > > Since Filch is taking a "Quick Spell" course, it is probable that it > is not illegal for him to do so, even though he hasn't graduated > from Hogwarts or any other Wizarding school. This may be an > inconsistency, or else there are those who have to use magic in > secret, like Hagrid. I can't believe that Dumbledore isn't aware of > Hagrid's wand in the umbrella. What's more, did the MoM not notice > the use of magic when Hagrid went to get Harry? How the MoM monitors legal and illegal magic is obscure to me (maybe even to them, since they don't always get it right). Here's my little theory about what does and doesn't get one in trouble with the MoM: 1) Non-magical people (Muggles and Squibs) can do anything they want, because they can't do any magic with a wand or without. For example, Filch is able to use things charmed by others (e.g. Mrs. Skower's All-Purpose Magical Mess-Remover). No one cares if he takes a Kwikspell course, because it will have no effect on him except to thin his wallet. I propose that Squibs can travel by Floo powder as well as see Dementors, but I base this on nothing but opinion. 2) Wizard children under eleven years of age are subject to monitoring just in case a Muggle might see something untoward and need a visit from the Obliviators, but the child would not be warned or otherwise in trouble with the MoM. For example, Kevin's mother at the Quidditch World Cup campground is apparently upset with him for engorging slugs with Daddy's wand, but only because it is disgusting, not because he is about to be arrested. Wizard children can apparently use objects charmed by others, such as Floo powder and broomsticks (e.g. six-year-old Ginny borrowing from the broomshed). 3) School age wizards may use magic which doesn't normally require a wand. This may be because the MoM can only detect magic which would normally require a wand. George and Fred fly the car, but don't get into trouble because they didn't enchant it (the wand requiring part). Flying a broomstick doesn't require a wand, thus the Weasleys are able to practice Quidditch at home in the summer (but they couldn't charm a broom to fly themselves). The bat-bogey hex undoubtedly requires a wand, but Fred doesn't specify exactly when he experienced Ginny's version of it. Fred and George's headless hats seem to require charms (wand magic), but they may have made those while at school. The Skiving Snackboxes are probably potions, and would not have required wand magic. The hover charm for which Harry is warned in CoS would probably have required a wand if it had been done by a wizard, although not if done by a house elf. The MoM's alarm went off because, as far they they knew, there could not have been a house elf in Little Whinging. Aunt Marge seems to have been the object of an unintentional engorgement charm, which was detected by the MoM because it is a charm that would normally require a wand. Harry escaped a warning only because it was clearly accidental. 4) Wizards expelled from school without completing their training are not generally allowed to do magic, except under special conditions. Hagrid requests permission from Dumbledore to put a charm around the chicken coop in CoS, implying that Dumbledore was his "probation officer" in some sense, and could allow Hagrid to do magic under specific circumstances. The MoM can probably detect Hagrid's magic, at least when he is away from Hogwarts, but since Hagrid's magic is apparently regulated by Dumbledore, the MoM doesn't send him warnings. Undoubtedly I am missing some important examples and other cases, please feel free to amend (or debunk) as you wish! Once I've got the rules down, I mean to apply for that opening in the Improper Use of Magic Office advertized in the Daily Prophet yesterday. Do you think I can convince them I'm a Squib? Honey From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 06:40:51 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:40:51 -0000 Subject: Centaurs and Goblins and Elves, Oh My ! (WAS: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89097 David wrote: I believe the function of Hermione's hats in the story is to signal her drift into arrogance. Crucially, she never tries to find out if her tactic is working. Why does she not wonder why all those joyful free elves are not coming to thank her? Frost wrote: We find it hard to understand why someone that is intelligent would want to be subservient to another, but then we have to remember that which Hermione is forgetting. They aren't human, and their value systems are vastly different than ours are. [snip] The point is, Hermione is failing, and will fail, because she is trying to force her own value system on someone else. If anything, the hats would be a learning tool to help her understand that she needs to respect other peoples (beings, but I consider them people) values and points of view, even if yours disagrees. Debbie: I think David and Frost hit the nail right on the head. Hermione can only see from a human POV. This is essentially the same mistake Hermione (and the rest of the WW) makes with the centaurs. She refers to them as horses, apparently persuaded that their refusal of clothes and other accoutrements that humans find civilizing makes them less than human, and it is the height of arrogance for her to march Umbridge into the forest assuming the centaurs will be happy to help one set of humans in a dispute with another human because that other human is demonstrably prejudiced against the centaurs. Peter: What wizards call "goblin war" might have been a rebellion "just" to gain full rights - which they might have won, now having those rights. Or goblins lost but wizardkind so many losses that they had to admit certain rights. Such as the right to have property and run a business. Debbie: I'm not sure they have the right to own property; I'm not even convinced they own Gringotts. Handling money may well be *dirty work* in the WW, especially the tricky task of exchanging the Muggle currency they receive. The goblins have a crucial role to play in the coming war, and they're not necessarily going to support the Ministry just because they've been given the right to control the money. They *don't* have full rights, despite centuries of goblin rebellions. The books are full of clues that the goblins are an angry bunch, so that conditions may be right for another rebellion. For example, Lupin refers to rights that have been denied to them for centuries, and Bill adds that they are quite angry with the Ministry since Ludo Bagman never paid up what he owes them. The Prophet uses accusations of ties to "subversive goblin groups" to discredit Madam Marchbanks' support of Dumbledore. The Quibbler (whose accuracy should not be underestimated, notwithstanding the fact that it quoted a ministry insider who claimed Fudge had goblins cooked in pies) reports that Fudge would like to seize control of Gringotts and the gold housed therein. Interestingly, goblins are another intelligent non-human species that Hermione appears not to have any use for. From GoF ch. 24 in response to Ron's joke about Hermione getting into the goblin protection business: "Goblins don't need protection. Haven't you been listening to what Professor Binns has been telling us about goblin rebellions? . . . Well, they're quite capable of dealing with wizards . . . . They're very clever. They're not like house-elves, who never stick up for themselves." Even though they *must* be learning in Binns' classes that the goblins don't have the same rights as humans despite centuries of rebellion (including their attempt to disrupt the Wizard's Council in the 14th century), Hermione seems decidedly uninterested in them, or perhaps she simply has them pegged as enemies of wizards. Does anyone else find it odd that a Muggle-born like Hermione, who champions the cause of the house-elves who won't stick up for themselves, would be so insensitive to the rights denied to other magical non-humans? Is it because Hermione wants to be a crusader for the oppressed? Hermione talks about the us vs. them nature of the house system in OOP, but I don't recall her speaking about reaching out to other species. Did I miss something? Debbie From watercolor_stain at yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 19:04:06 2004 From: watercolor_stain at yahoo.com (watercolor_stain) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:04:06 -0000 Subject: James and Lilys Professions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89098 Has there been a discussion/speculation on what James and Lily's professions were? ~watercolorz From rayheuer3 at aol.com Mon Jan 19 06:46:45 2004 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:46:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? Message-ID: <1cc.17f15a11.2d3cd755@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89099 BrwNeil at aol.com writes: > Ron joked in OotP that Gryffindor had as much chance of winning the > Quidditch Cup as his dad did of becoming Minister of Magic. > Gryffindor did in fact win the Quidditch Cup. Could the poor, > honest, Muggle loving Arthur have a political future ahead of him? Ray replies: My wife and I have had several heated discussions about this. I personally believe that Fudge's political career is about to come to a disasterous end. Just exactly who would replace him is a question for much debate. Many point to Arthur Weasley, based largely on Ron's "prophecy" in OotP. And I do believe that the Weasley name draws more respect than their financial situation would seem to justify. However, because of his muggle-loving ways, Arthur is seen as much of a buffoon. Granted, his being wounded guarding the Ministry will certainly cast him in a hero's light, but I doubt that he has the political standing to rise to the Minister's post. (Do you suppose the Green Derby is a badge of rank, or just Fudge's taste in clothes?) Add to this that the Malfoy-funded politicos who put Fudge in over Dumbledore the first time will likely work against Arthur. Dumbledore will likely find some polite way of dodging it again, and I doubt that Percy will even be considered for the post. So who does that leave? Snape and Lockhart would both make for fascinating fanfics, but I doubt JKR will go that route. Lupin, Hagrid, and Prof. Binns all have problems with "racial prejudice". Neville's gran is probably too old and Tonks too young. Mooney and Prof. Trelawney are just too ... you know ... I am left with just two candidates, assuming we have heard the new Minister's name mentioned at all... Mr. Lovegood (Luna's dad) as a "respected journalist" and Nicholas Flamel. Although Dumbledore said his old partner would "put his affairs in order and live out his alloted lifespan", there's no reason to think he isn't still alive some five years later. And who could naysay this acknowledgement for a man who was a great enough wizard to create the Philosophers/Sorcerers Stone, and a great enough man to voluntarily give it up? -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 06:50:17 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:50:17 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89100 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana_Sirius_fan" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "estrom2000" > wrote: > > Honey wrote: > > > Parenthetically, it seems to me that since Hagrid is now "cleared of > > > all charges" and apparently eligible to complete his wizard training, > > > he could go to Olivander's and buy a new wand completely legally. > > What do you think? > > > > > > Nellie: > > I've also thought about it - it seems strange that although Hagrid's > > name was cleared, he didn't get a new wand (at least we never see him > > using one, including during the atttack at the end of OTTP), > > especially as he became a teacher at Hogwarts right away. > > > Diana: > I'm not sure why Hagrid didn't go buy a new wand in book 3 (he could > of) but in Book 4 we learn that Hagrid is part-giant. Giants are > not allowed to have wands so I doubt they would let Hagrid buy a new > one after Goblet. bboy_mn: Ahhh... but you are all missing one very important point, Hagrid was NOT 'cleared of all charges'. It is now known amoung many people that Hagrid did not open the Chamber of Sercrets and that he did not harm those muggles. So it is generally accepted that he is innocent. But there has never been a formal hearing to reverse his conviction. In other words, Hagrid has not been FORMALLY 'cleared of all charges'. I think that is what has to happen for Hagrid to get full wizard priviledges. True he has not graduated from Hogwarts, but he does have over 50 years of real-life experience under the supervision of some of the finest wizard in Britian, the Hogwarts staff, and he is 'of age'; Hagrid is obviously over the age of 17, so the Restriction of Underage Wizardry does not apply to him. Certainly Dumbledore could reverse Hagrid's expulsion from the school, although, that might be tricky when Hagrid has a crimial conviction against him. The real question is, why haven't they had a formal hearing? What I hope will happen is that there will be a formal hearing, and Hagrid will be given full wizard status based on his years of practical experience, then he can go buy his new wand. (I predict oak, 16 inches, dragon heart core). Just a thought. bboy_mn From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 19 08:59:40 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:59:40 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: <1cc.17f15a11.2d3cd755@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89101 Ray wrote: I personally believe that Fudge's political career is about to come to a disasterous end. Just exactly who would replace him is a question for much debate. Many point to Arthur Weasley, based largely on Ron's "prophecy" in OotP. And I do believe that the Weasley name draws more respect than their financial situation would seem to justify. However, because of his muggle-loving ways, Arthur is seen as much of a buffoon. Granted, his being wounded guarding the Ministry will certainly cast him in a hero's light, but I doubt that he has the political standing to rise to the Minister's post. So who does that leave? Snape and Lockhart would both make for fascinating fanfics, but I doubt JKR will go that route. Lupin, Hagrid, and Prof. Binns all have problems with "racial prejudice". Neville's gran is probably too old and Tonks too young. Mooney and Prof. Trelawney are just too ... you know ... I am left with just two candidates, assuming we have heard the new Minister's name mentioned at all... Mr. Lovegood (Luna's dad) as a "respected journalist" and Nicholas Flamel. Although Dumbledore said his old partner would "put his affairs in order and live out his alloted lifespan", there's no reason to think he isn't still alive some five years later. Berit replies: Mr. Lovegood, a "respected journalist"? I wouldn't exactly say that. Not even the tabloid-style journalist Rita Skeeter enjoys writing for his magazine... I believe Arthur Weasley is going to be the Minister For Magic, but not in book 6 (or maybe not even at the start of book 7, but at the end of it or after the war). I don't see why Fudge is not going to stay in his post for at least another year. He is not dead yet. I agree that it will be too soon for Arthur to become Minister already in book 6 because he doesn't have the political "support". But that might very well change during the next two years as he becomes involved in the war against Voldemort. And from what we've seen of Arthur so far, it is my opinion he has what it takes to a great job as a Minister for Magic. He's not just a "big boy" finding childish pleasure in Muggle artefacts. He has shown himself to be a man of principles governing his beliefs and actions; a man who knows his political agenda (for example the equality of magical beings/myggles + the protection of Muggles). Arthur Weasley has a lot of strengths old Fudge may envy him, the greatest one being having a HEART :-) Also, I don't think Nicholas Flamel is among the living anymore. Dumbledore stated that when he and his wife had set things in order, they would say goodbye. Unless it takes several years to settle one's affairs, I think they're dead. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 19 09:27:33 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:27:33 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror... or other Future Occupations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89102 bboy_mn wrote:> So, I too am convinced that Harry will have had his fill of Dark Wizard fighting by the time all this is over. Given his current wealth, the wealth I predict he will inherit from Sirius, and the wealth he will earn from Weasley's business enterprises, Harry will spend his life comfortably wealthy, engage in business ventures and charitable endeavors. JJPandy wrote: I would hope that Harry would put his energy and money into programs for young orphaned wizards and witches to keep them on the path to an honest good life! Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville could take them on trips to see dragons and the ancient tombs. Berit replies: Well, I'm one of the "ignorant" ones that believes Harry IS going to be an auror :-) After all, the one thing, apart from Quidditch, that he is REALLY good at is DADA. And he knows it and enjoys it. He has demonstrated in OoP that he is seriously interested in pursuing such a career(much more than in GoF, where he thought to himself he'd have to check the extend of injuries on other aurors apart from Mad-EWye Moody before he thought of a career as an auror :-). He also has the full support of his head of house. Harry seemed to be thoroughly fascinated when visiting the auror headquarters at the MoM. I agree that he'll probably be dead tired of dark wizards at the end of book 7, but he'll have the whole summer to recover before startig auror training in the autumn... :-) I honestly can't see Harry in any other occupation. I also hope to see Ron working alongside him as his partner. Hermione will most definitely not be an auror; I see her either in politics or research, working for the rights of elfs or what have you :-) Why not; in twenty, or maybe fifty years, Hermione might be the new Minister For Magic! Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 10:01:59 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:01:59 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89103 "frost_indri" wrote: > For those interested in the question and not the debate, I'm very interested in the debate, too bad I wasn't on the net this week-end. I hope it's not too late to voice my opinion ? About the Crucio curse Harry tried to use on Bellatrix : sachmet96 : > > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at > > the age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. Frost: > No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. > Crucio is not the same as a AK. The difficulty is still that he > tried to use an unforgivable, but was unable to. Now me Del : I don't have my books with me, but from what I remember, Harry didn't mean to kill Bellatrix, he wanted to hurt her, to make her suffer as he was suffering from Sirius's death. It was hurt and anger that motivated him to use the Crucio curse. It's a very natural reaction, very human, and very dangerous. I used to react the same way when I was a kid, until I destroyed a prized possession of mine in a fit of "righteous" rage. I must have been nine I think, but I realised then that I could do something really bad someday if I didn't learn to control myself. And it's the same for Harry : he has to realise that he can't keep reacting with his guts only. If he does learn that, he can become good Auror material. If he doesn't, there's no way he can be entrusted with so much power and authority. Sachmet96 : > He also hasn't shown any significant (magical) abilities above > average. Frost wrote: > I doubt any of them, with the exception of Hermione, would be able > to produce a real patronus when faced with a real dementor. sachmet96 : > I do think all of them would be able to do it (or nearly all of > them). > Frost: > We don't get a run-down of who can and can't do it, but not > everyone has it, and no one has had the chance to do it under any > sort of pressure, other that peir pressure. > Of course, they could surprise me. we'll see. ^_^ Now me Del : First of all, thank you Sachmet !! I'm so glad to see that someone else thinks that Harry doesn't display any super-magic. I can't help but wonder where people get their opinion that Harry is so much better at magic than everyone else. He has talent, sure, but many others do too (including Hermione, no matter what she says), and many others work much more than he does. And as far as the Patronuses (Patroni ?) go, I'd like to remind that Harry didn't manage to produce a good real one until the Lake Attack. And even then, he only managed to produce it because he already knew he would manage. During Lupin's lessons, he sure learned to produce something, but it was feeble enough that neither he nor Lupin could identify the stag. Frost wrote: > He has leadership skills, and can work well on a team. > sachmet96 > I also disagree here. He only works well with a team of his > choosing and his leadership skills worked reasonably well for a > team of his choosing too but that doesn't say anything how it will > be with others. Frost: > Actually, the only "team members" he chose out of the ones > he lead to the Department of Mysteries were Ron and Hermione. > Ginny, Luna, and Neville were not his choices at all. Now me Del : Well Frost, I'm afraid that remark of yours isn't a very good point for Harry ;-), as it proves that Harry is not a team person. He is offered help, and as always he won't take it. But one could of course argue that he was worried for their life, which is quite a noble cause of course. Frost again : > However, he still took them (not his choice really) and he > lead them. And they followed. He was the clear leader in the > Department of Mysteries, Del : He was the leader because he was the only one who had any idea where they were supposed to be going. Frost : > and he took responsibility for them in his action after he realized > he had been tricked. Being tricked isn't a sign of bad leadership, > just a sign of bad thinking, or good thinking on the part of the > tricker. Or both. Del : And in this case it was both. I'm afraid Harry demonstrated great anti-leadership talents : he refused to listen to his most wise and trusted counselor (Hermione), he refused offered help, he refused to consider anyone else's suggestion (he wouldn't listen to Luna's idea of flying, even when she said it twice), and most of all he got angry every time things weren't going his way. That last point in particular is a definite sign of bad leadership skills. Frost : > Also, look at the DA. It was Hermione's idea, but he ended > up being the leader. Del : But only because Hermione made it so ! She deliberately put Harry in the spotlight, she had to organise a VOTE to give Harry full authority both in his own eyes and in the others' eyes (except Cho of course :-), she had to keep pushing Harry. In my opinion, Hermione was the natural leader of the whole DA matter, and Harry got the leading position precisely because SHE decided so ! Frost : > He made the choices of curriculum, and he had > the ability to get their respect, even from Zecharias Smith. And > even though it wasn't his idea, he did make the conscious decision > to lead this thing. He would have to, if he was teaching it, and > teacher is a role of authority. Frankly, he did a good job. Del : Mmm, I don't know about teaching being linked to leading. I'm a natural teacher : I love to teach people on anything and I'm good at it. But I'm a disaster of a leader : I can't make decisions for other people, I don't believe in my judgement enough to impose it on others, etc... So while I agree that Harry is indeed quite a good teacher, I disagree that this makes him a leader. sachmet96: > It was shown so far that he doesn't like to work with others but > is constantly trying to solve anything on his own - so he is not > really a team's person. Frost: > That is a good point. He has been resistant to trusting others, > esp. Authority figures. Though, growing up with the Dursleys as > Authority figures, I can't blame him. *sighs* However, his > relationship with Ron & Hermione has caused him to trust Ron and > Hermione, and rely on them for help. Del : I have to disagree again. Harry doesn't fully rely on neither Ron nor Hermione. When forced to choose between his own gut feeling (which has often been proved wrong), and Hermione's reasoning (which has often been proved right), he still chose to dismiss Hermione's opinion and trust only his gut feeling. He hasn't learned anything. He trusts Ron and Hermione only if they agree with him ! If they don't, then they are systematically wrong and against him. After all they've gone through with and for him, he still doesn't fully trust them. Frost : > At this point, I will agree with you, he's too much of a loner to > make it. But then, he's growing, and maybe he'll learn to rely on > others more in the next books. I'd like to think so, its a trend I > think I see, but that is only conjecture. Del : In fact, I personally think it's going to be a very big part of the next book. Thanks for the interesting debate :-) Del From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 11:51:56 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:51:56 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - important?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89104 Ada wrote: Anway, I'm wondering if any of you think if there is some sort of hidden significance to Fawkes. vmonte responds: What I find interesting is why DD's group is called The Order of the Phoenix in the first place? The namew implies an association with reincarnation/rebirth since the Phoenix is an animal that has a long life and continuously dies and then is reborn. There seems to be a lot of preoccupation with longevity,extending life,rebirth: The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone and Flamel. Reincarnation: Fawkes... Rebirth: How many times has Voldemort tried to come back. Through the stone, Tom Riddle's diary, etc. Does the Order work to protect against Voldemort or was it originally meant for something else (to protect the heirs of the original houses)? What is the veil? And is it really death or does it transport people back into the past (as another poster suggested)? If it is a time machine are these people distrupting the timeline? Are there multiple time lines? Is DD trying to correct the timeline? If people are able to transport deep into the past has anyone gone to see the original 4 creators of Hogwarts? Have any of the original 4 transported into the future? Who exactly is Flamel and wife? Is it Dumbledore and someone else? Or has the stone been used to extend the life of someone important from the past? Is Fawkes Godric Gryffindor's original pet? Is the sorting hat the original hat used during Godric's time? Does the sorting hat only sort students, or does it also identify the direct descendants of the original 4 houses? Have any of the original 4 (Godric, Salazar, Rowena, Hufflepuff) reincarnated? Just my thoughts... From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 11:58:08 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:58:08 -0000 Subject: I have a very good question. About Scabbers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89105 barbienut75 wrote: This may be out dated, but it just popped into my head. The first spell that Ron cast on Scabbers, Sunshine daisy's Buttermellow.....ect. Do you think it may not have worked because he was really Peter? vmonte responds: I think it was JKR's inside joke about Peter. Ron was trying to turn Scabbers yellow. Cowards are yellow. Peter is a coward. vmonte From moviebec at ihug.com.au Mon Jan 19 07:27:49 2004 From: moviebec at ihug.com.au (moviebec) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:27:49 -0000 Subject: Lost wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89106 > Geoff wrote: > Try some wandless magic or borrow a friend's wand and do "Accio wand"? > > Berit replies: > Or, if you've misplaced your wand in the dark nearby; say "Lumos" and voila, it lights up (like Harry did in the dementor scene in Little Whinging :-) >>> -Snip- Frost: Somehow, I just don't think the Lumos would work normally. Well, maybe... ok, what I'm thinking is this: 1) Super Adrenalin. If that wasn't a moment where adrenalin would rush through the blood, I don't know what is. As it is, we don't really know how adrenaline effects magic, but we do know how it effects the body, which includes sharpening of the senses and a sort of ability to hyper-concentrate on what is at hand. Since we know that magic does need concentration, it is likely that Harry's (and any other wizards) magical abilities might be a bit heightened at that moment, like strength is in everyone. 2) His hand was inches from the wand. So it is possible that the close proximity allowed for the wand to received the magical command as well. We don't know what would have happened, say, it had been several feet away. -Snip- -Bec- We know that magic in untrained children, manifests itself when the child is feeling heightened emotions or their life is in danger. For example Neville bouncing when dropped out the window, Harry disapparating when being chased at school by Dudley and his gang and reapparating to a safe vantage point are just a few (though he didn't realise at the time it was magic). We also know that powerful witches and wizards don't have to use their wands to perform magic but instead make things happen with their will(mind power). Dumbledore comes to mind however I can't think of any canon to concrete my beleif on this one. Can anyone else? Here's my theory as to what happened to Harry in the alley that night when his wand lit up even though he was not physically holding the wand. I believe that wands and incantations are simply tried and true ways of performing magic, if you will, a vessel through which to harness the power of the magic, a way to combine one's will and magical ability. When Harry said the incantation he was desperately trying to find his dropped wand so he could perform the patronus charm to drive the dementors away. Therefore saying lumos actually made his wand light up even though there was no physical contact. This is very similar to Frosts adrenaline theory. With this theory in mind one could, focusing their will, use the "accio wand" spell have their wand return to them, depending on how gifted the wizard or witch in question was. What does everyone else think? Bec thought of the day; Move forward fearlessly, trusting that each step is perfectly guided! From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 12:25:54 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:25:54 -0000 Subject: Centaurs and Goblins and Elves, Oh My ! (WAS: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89107 Debbie wrote: Interestingly, goblins are another intelligent non-human species that Hermione appears not to have any use for. From GoF ch. 24 in response to Ron's joke about Hermione getting into the goblin protection business: "Goblins don't need protection. Haven't you been listening to what Professor Binns has been telling us about goblin rebellions? . . . Well, they're quite capable of dealing with wizards . . . . They're very clever. They're not like house-elves, who never stick up for themselves." Even though they *must* be learning in Binns' classes that the goblins don't have the same rights as humans despite centuries of rebellion (including their attempt to disrupt the Wizard's Council in the 14th century), Hermione seems decidedly uninterested in them, or perhaps she simply has them pegged as enemies of wizards. Does anyone else find it odd that a Muggle-born like Hermione, who champions the cause of the house-elves who won't stick up for themselves, would be so insensitive to the rights denied to other magical non-humans? Is it because Hermione wants to be a crusader for the oppressed? Hermione talks about the us vs. them nature of the house system in OOP, but I don't recall her speaking about reaching out to other species. Did I miss something? vmonte responds: Hermione is a child. She is just begining to become aware of social injustices in the wizard world. It makes sense that she would take up the elf cause because it is something that she sees everyday in school. (It's true that she needs to look at the elf issue not from her "priviledged" point of view but through the eyes of elves.) I think we need to cut Hermione a break. She is after all a smart girl--and she will learn. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 19 12:30:04 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:30:04 +0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: <357D54E8-4A7B-11D8-87B1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89108 Looks like I'm ploughing an almost lonely furrow again. (Only one other poster (thank you sawsan_issa) has responded so far.) It's not for the first time. I'll even confess that it can get to be addictive, promoting ideas, speculations, theories that deviate from the comfort of the mainstream consensus. It can be a lot of fun, just so long as I remember to support the case with some sort of logical argument, however slight or elliptical. This time it's a bit different. Ever since OoP was published there has been discussion centred on what is locked up in the Dept. of Mystery that DD sets so much store by. Fandom doesn't seem to have reached a consensus yet, though the new poll announced a couple days ago may solidify opinions somewhat. Admittedly, there are a few front runners; love, truth and integrity being among the favourites. Each has something going for it, each has adherents and each has opponents determined that their own preferences achieve primacy. In this particular instance it's more a matter of personal taste than of clues or evidence in canon, particularly when one examines and rejects the choice of others. Well, it is with me; you can and will speak for yourselves on that, and realistically there's no reason why my offering should be considered to be any more compelling than any of the others posted. But that's never stopped me from cluttering up the site with speculations that don't enthrall the membership in the past, so why change now? Whatever is in *the room* is supposed to be a damn near irresistible force, outranking death, intelligence, natural forces and other mysteries such as the nature of time. That narrows the field down for us. It is also not unique to Harry; DD implies as much at the end of OoP. Besides, if it were unique to Harry how could the Ministry possibly study it in a locked room that he has never entered? It is, however, a force that he is full of, suffused with, and that Voldemort detests it. It is presumed to be the force that saved Harry at Godric's Hollow and prevented possession in the Ministry battle. To the fans rooting for steadfastness, fidelity, courage, love etc., this confirms them in their beliefs. "See? Doesn't that prove it?" Er, no. When apparently conflicting ideas claim the same bits of evidence as proof you begin to wonder. Are they different entities after all? Some of them are quite difficult to separate with overlapping causes, effects and appearances. Or could it be that they are all parts of the same thing? It seems to me that these are all evidence of a living being - they're by-products of human existence. No life and there's no love, nor staunchness, nor intelligence nor any of them. Life is the root of all. What more fascinating subject to study? What is it? How did it start? Can we recreate it? Questions to keep the Natural Philosophers going for centuries. Even the Alchemists are in on the act - can we prolong it indefinitely? I don't see how most (all?) of the other suggested forces could be subjected to study or examination - the terms are too subjective and wooly. For example, is the love one feels for a partner the same as the love one feels for a parent or child? Nope. Can one love someone that you have never met ( necessary for the outbreak of universal togetherness proposed by some who see Harry as a Redeemer figure)? No. Empathy is not the same as love. And I don't think JKR would be that controversial; lots of real world problems in that direction. You may love, you may give love, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted - or reciprocated. It's a very individual thing that does not exist unless there is a person or thing as cause or object for the emotion. It's more of a reaction than a universal absolute. I see it as an omnibus word used to describe a plethora of personal feelings that may or may not signify something important or permanent. Most unsatisfactory. There was a thread a few months back on courage, bravery and such-like. Very difficult to define the terms. What some may perceive as 'bravery' by Harry others see as rashness or lack of foresight. He gets himself in a pickle and somebody else has to come along and get him out of it. Not convincing. Similarly attributes such as fortitude, steadfastness, heart (whatever that is) could be dismissed as pig-headed stubbornness. Let's face it, he's shown a lot of that over 5 books. Truth. That's an interesting concept that has attracted some. What is truth? Depends who you ask. To some it is a proof based on strict logic; to others the basis of their personal philosophies and not subject to logic at all. Most importantly, how can truth be applied to young Potter? He doesn't have a clue what's true and what isn't so how can he be 'filled' with it as DD suggests? Sorry, folks. I'm not persuaded. But Life can be studied objectively. It is a demonstrable property of some forms of organic matter, it can be ended, it can be propagated, and it is a powerful force. It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice, it's what Voldy wants to remove from Harry, it's what Voldemort has perverted in the denial of his mortality, it's what he denies with the name given to his supporters. And if, as DD says of the Flamels, death is the *next* great adventure, what was the first? Life, of course. Well worth investigating. You probably don't agree. Am I down-hearted? No; while there's life, there's hope. Kneasy From skosmoskijr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 12:43:25 2004 From: skosmoskijr at yahoo.com (Stan Kosmoski) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:43:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry after the Dark Lord In-Reply-To: <1074483586.11375.28039.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040119124325.31244.qmail@web41406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89109 I see the books ending with Hogwarts announcing the first permanent Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher who will remain more than 1 year - Harry Potter. After all, he started teaching the class in OOP didn't he? Stan Kosmoski __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Mon Jan 19 12:49:12 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:49:12 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: <1cc.17f15a11.2d3cd755@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rayheuer3 at a... wrote: > BrwNeil at a... writes: > > Ron joked in OotP that Gryffindor had as much chance of winning the > > Quidditch Cup as his dad did of becoming Minister of Magic. > > Gryffindor did in fact win the Quidditch Cup. Could the poor, > > honest, Muggle loving Arthur have a political future ahead of him? > > Ray replies: > > My wife and I have had several heated discussions about this. I personally > believe that Fudge's political career is about to come to a disasterous end. > Just exactly who would replace him is a question for much debate. > > So who does that leave? Snape and Lockhart would both make for fascinating > fanfics, but I doubt JKR will go that route. Lupin, Hagrid, and Prof. Binns all > have problems with "racial prejudice". Neville's gran is probably too old > and Tonks too young. Mooney and Prof. Trelawney are just too ... you know ... > > I am left with just two candidates, assuming we have heard the new Minister's > name mentioned at all... Mr. Lovegood (Luna's dad) as a "respected > journalist" and Nicholas Flamel. The next Minister will likely come from within the Ministry, not Hogwarts. There are several other possibilities, all of whom are already affiliated with the Ministry: Susan Bones, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Elphias Doge, Emmaline Vance, the dimininitive Dedalus Diggle or the unjustly-imprisoned Sturgis Podmore. And doesn't Dolores Umbridge still retain the title of Senior Undersecretary? - CMC From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 19 13:06:51 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:06:51 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: <357D54E8-4A7B-11D8-87B1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89111 Kneasy wrote: For example, is the love one feels for a partner the same as the > love one feels for a parent or child? Nope. Can one love someone that > you have never met ( necessary for the outbreak of universal > togetherness proposed by some who see Harry as a Redeemer figure)? No. > Empathy is not the same as love. And I don't think JKR would be that > controversial; lots of real world problems in that direction. You may > love, you may give love, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted - or > reciprocated. It's a very individual thing that does not exist unless > there is a person or thing as cause or object for the emotion. It's > more of a reaction than a universal absolute. I see it as an omnibus > word used to describe a plethora of personal feelings that may or may > not signify something important or permanent. Most unsatisfactory. > > There was a thread a few months back on courage, bravery and > such-like. Very difficult to define the terms. What some may perceive > as 'bravery' by Harry others see as rashness or lack of foresight. He > gets himself in a pickle and somebody else has to come along and get > him out of it. Not convincing. > > Similarly attributes such as fortitude, steadfastness, heart (whatever > that is) could be dismissed as pig-headed stubbornness. Let's face it, > he's shown a lot of that over 5 books. > > Truth. That's an interesting concept that has attracted some. What is > truth? Depends who you ask. To some it is a proof based on strict > logic; to others the basis of their personal philosophies and not > subject to logic at all. Most importantly, how can truth be applied to > young Potter? He doesn't have a clue what's true and what isn't so how > can he be 'filled' with it as DD suggests? > > Sorry, folks. I'm not persuaded. > But Life can be studied objectively. It is a demonstrable property of > some forms of organic matter, it can be ended, it can be propagated, > and it is a powerful force. > > It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice, it's what Voldy wants > to remove from Harry, it's what Voldemort has perverted in the denial > of his mortality, it's what he denies with the name given to his > supporters. And if, as DD says of the Flamels, death is the *next* > great adventure, what was the first? Life, of course. Well worth > investigating. > > You probably don't agree. Am I down-hearted? No; while there's life, > there's hope. > > Kneasy Berit replies: I like your well-written post :-) DD says Voldemort fears the mysterious force in the MoM-room. But how can Voldemort fear what he seems to have used the better part of his life to get: immortality/everlasting life? Have you thought of an explanation to this seeming discrepancy? I know it makes me very boring, but I still believe Love is the force studied in this room, and I don't agree with your definition of love. It is a universal absolute, a principle, not just a collection of vaguely defined emotions and feelings. If love wasn't a principle, there would be no point in the promise of the marital wow of sticking together "for better or for worse" (I know; a lot of people get divorced anyway, but maybe one reason is that they haven't grasped the meaning of what true love is all about...). That's why a man like Dumbledore can be trusted: He is governed by Love, the principle. Meaning we can trust him sticking to "acting out of love", no matter what he is subjectively feeling at any given time. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 13:12:25 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:12:25 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89112 Debbie wrote sometime back in post 38730 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38730): bboy_mn agrees with this analysis, going on to say in post 88447 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88447): Sophierom: While I love these ideas, particularly Debbie's characterization of Ron and Percy as "bookends driven apart by the noisy, attention- getting twins," I think we should not overemphasize the similarities between the two brothers. As JKR has made abundantly clear throughout the series, it is individual choice that really makes the person. bboy_mn's insight that Percy is trapped in a dysfunctional cylce is a very astute and sensative analysis, but ultimately, I believe that JKR would argue that it was Percy's choice as an individual, not some inevitable reaction to family dynamics, that led him to become a pompous twit. I also believe that Percy has the choice to return to his family and provide a real service for the Order (and I think he may very well do this in the end.) But so far, what makes the similarities between Ron and Percy so important -and I believe the case for their similarities was very strongly presented - what makes these similarities so important is how the brothers use these similarities to create such different personalities. The idea that both of these Weasleys have taken their analogous character traits and behaved so differently makes a fantastic parallel to Harry and Tom Riddle. Best, Sophierom From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Mon Jan 19 13:26:26 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Anne) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:26:26 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89113 > Berit replies: > DD says Voldemort fears the mysterious force in the MoM-room. But how can Voldemort fear what he seems to have used the better part of his life to get: immortality/everlasting life? Have you thought of an explanation to this seeming discrepancy? {Anne Responds} Hmmmmm...I can see (I think) What Kneasy is getting out...and also what Berit is getting....just to play Devil's Advocate here, though... What is Voldemort really after? 'Life'? Sort of...but then, with normal, everyday 'life'...there is always Death to follow. Even Phoenix's 'die'--rebrithing from the ashes young and anew. Voldemort is looking for a way out of that natural cycle--not so much Life, as the cessation, in his case, of the eventuality of Death....which in turn, if you ask a lot of philospher types, argue that Life itself looses its meaning...and is essentally no longer life, because it is lacking it's counter balance in death...bascially, you stagnate after awhile (You see this theme in a lot of 'immortal' stories--everything becomes the same after awhile....)and 'die' internally, even though your body still lives on (Essentiually, you loose your soul, your emotions, your humanity). So what he's really seeking is to escape the natural order of things-- Life being one of them (Because after Life comes Death)...so I can see where Life (in it's original form) would be something everyone has, something Voldy would fear (in it's natural form), and something that could very well tip the balance. After all, if Voldemort is gifted with the Life in that room (which would be the natural, balanced version)...what would happen to him? After all, he has 'lived' far beyond his natural time by now...so...he might gain "real' Life if he went into that room, only to loose it instantly--because Death has been waiting for him for so long, in order to rebalance the scales... **Oi, philosphy hurts my head sometimes....^^;...** Anne From philstar22 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 19 12:18:47 2004 From: philstar22 at hotmail.com (philstar222) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:18:47 -0000 Subject: Shipping Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89114 Hi, I am philstar22. I am a huge Harry Potter shipper and debater. I am 18 and I live in the Philippines. However, I am an American. I am a huge H/HR shipper. I like other ships, but that is my OTP and the one that I am most certain will be canon. Shipping, for me, has always been there since I read the first book. This was even before I discovered fandom. I guess I am probably biased by my parents relationship. They were very close friends before they began to date. They did not realize their feelings until my mom was about to leave the country. Now, they seem to have the ideal relationship, at least to me. They rarely fight, and when they do, they make up. They do not insult each other. They are different but share values. To me, Harry/Hermione is the ideal pairing. They are best friends. They share a bond. It was this bond, the one I saw in the first book, that first drew me to this pairing. They seemed so much closer than Ron and Hermione were. Ron and Hermione were always fighting. Some people find this cute, but to me it is not about sexual tension. They simply do not agree on anything. They are way too alike in personality and way to different in values to ever get along. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I like the bickering kind of relationship. I was into Star Wars much sooner than Harry Potter. I love the Han/Leia relationship. I am also a Draco/Ginny shipper. For me, however, it depends on the personality of the people. Han and Leia as well as Draco and Ginny are all very self assured people. They are firm in who they are and can handle someone who questions and insults them. Ron and Hermione are not. They are both insecure. Ron needs someone who is completely there for him and who admires him because of his insecurities and his growing up in a large family. Hermione is too independent and as of yet does not seem to admire him. Hermione is unsure of herself. She needs someone who allows her to be independent and who respects her for who she is. To me, the most important things in a relationship are friendship, respect, compromise, and understanding. Ron and Hermione are friends, but it is a different kind of friendship. They don't have that warmth, that closeness that is there between Harry and Hermione. Ron and Hermione respect each other as people, but they do not respect the other's view points. That is a really bad thing in a relationship. In a relationship you have to be willing to compromise. Ron and Hermione have once, but it was only for Harry. They have never done it on their own for themselves. Ron and Hermione do not really understand each other. They never go out of their way to try to understand what the other is thinking. Harry and Hermione seem to share all these things. They are very close friends. They are there for each other even when Ron is not. They hardly fight, and when they do they make up quickly. Hermione went to his quidditch game even when they were fighting. She did not go to Ron's when Harry was not playing. This shows that she respects him. She may not like the same things he likes, but she is willing to be there for him. He respects her. He does not agree with her on SPEW, but he respects her view point and does not insult her. He even refuses to tell her that Dobby took all the things she knitted. Harry and Hermione compromise a lot in the books. They understand each other. They share a bond. They know each other and what the other will think, say, or do. Hermione knew that Harry had a saving people thing. They always seem to be on the same wavelength. Another important thing in a relationship is that the two have different, compimentary personalities and similar values. Ron and Hermione have very similar personalities. Both are strong, bold people. Both are not afraid to say what they thing. Both are slightly insecure. What is different about them is their values. He values fun, humor, and traditions. She values hard work, learning, and equal rights at the expense of tradition. That is why they clash so much. Harry and Hermione are different. She is bold and not afraid to say what she thinks. She is logical and anilitical. He is less bold and more shy. He is more impetuous. They balance each other. They share values. He does not agree with her methods, but he is all for elf rights. He in general values hard work, though not as much as she does. For me, chemistry is secondary. It is something that develops. There are different kinds of relationships. In the kind that develops from friendship, you do not notice the chemistry until it is impossible to deny it anymore. It is not an obvious thing. When it comes to canon, I think H/Hr shippers not only see it different than R/Hr shippers, but look at it differently. R/Hr shippers tend to look at specific moments. They look for tension and conflict. H/Hr shippers tend to look at it from the perspective of the series as a whole. We look at how the relationships are developing. We look at the bond between H/Hr and how it has grown since book one. Of course, we have are moments, but our approach is generally more wholistic. Another think I would like to point out is that there are only two books left. Plus, there will be a war going on. I do not believe that romance will play a major part, but I do think that Harry needs a romance. He needs someone there at his side who understands him and can help him. Whatever the Harry romance is, it will be the main one. Frankly, I do not think that there will be enough time to develop anything but H/Hr. She is the only one who already has a strong relationship with Harry. My other ships that I think will probably be canon are Ron/Luna and Neville/Ginny. I ship them more for compatability than anything else. I know that most R/Hr shippers think that those who ship Ron with Luna just want to foist him off, but that is not true. That is what I feel about them and H/G, but I will not go into that. When I first read about Luna, I thought she was perfect for Ron. I did not even think about H/Hr until later. I just loved the idea. She can focus on him. She appreciates him and his humor. He can balance out her abstractness because he is very down to earth. I did not really think about Neville/Ginny until I read the fifth book. This was because I did not like Ginny until then. Now I like her a lot. I think that they would be good for each other. She is impetuous like Harry (a reason why they would be bad for each other) and Neville is more logical like Hermione. She is bold while he is shy. He can calm her and she can boost him. Many R/Hr shippers say that their ship is like Molly/Arthur. I do not see it. Ron and Hermione both argue and Ron often if not usually starts their arguements. Mr. Weasley does not argue back at his wife. Molly and Arthur do not insult each other. Actually, Neville/Ginny reminds me more of Arthur/Molly. Ginny is very much like her mother, and Neville reminds me of Arthur. Well, that went on for a while. I probably have more reasons, but I can't think of them at the moment. Anyways, those are my main reasons for shipping H/Hr and my other ships. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 19 12:23:18 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:23:18 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: <000001c3ddd3$e74bd350$8d667144@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89115 Iggy wrote: >>Truth (with the big "T"), is not an emotion, it is a statement of the very nature of reality. It doesn't influence your life, it dictates existence itself. I feel that JKR would be making a BIG mistake if she had it be Truth, since there would be too many people who would find fault with it, even among her hard-core fans, since she would have to define it.>> Sigune thinks: I entirely agree with Iggy. PLEASE let it not be Truth. That would be scary, spooky and far too absolute. The existence of Truth would mean that there is a clear-cut Right (anything or anyone adhering to the Truth) and a clear-cut Wrong (those who do not adhere to the Truth). That is extremely dangerous - and very unsatisfactory in a story that thematises tolerance. Let there be imagination, and speculation, and quests, and uncertainty, and people trying to make the best of it. Yours severely, Sigune "The truth is rarely pure and never simple" (Oscar Wilde) From pfsch at gmx.de Mon Jan 19 13:56:22 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:56:22 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89116 Hi AmanitaMuscaria! > AmanitaMuscaria again: Why do you assume Malfoy only had Dobby? All > Malfoy actually says is, 'You've lost me my servant, boy'. He never > says, you've lost me my only servant. I can't see the Malfoys > relying on only one, rather dubious, houseelf? Do you believe Dobby > could have just suddenly become rebellious? I would assume he's > always been a bit of an oddity. Peter: I regret that I cannot give you the exact point of that quote but in GoF or (more probably) OotP, Draco tells his mates that his mother now had to do all the housework by herself. So I assumed there aren't any more elves in the Malfoy Manson. I wonder by the way what "job" Lucius has. Does he just live from his fortune? Bye Peter From pfsch at gmx.de Mon Jan 19 13:46:48 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:46:48 -0000 Subject: Marauding Rita In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89117 Hi Marianne! > Marianne responds: > I don't think Rita had anything to do with MWP becoming Animagi. > When Remus speaks of it in PoA, he seems to imply that the boys > figured it out on their own. Plus, Peter needed help from James and > Sirius to succeed in this. No mention of Rita. Peter again: I doubt it could be learnt from books totally, so there could've been practical lessons, too. But most probably you're right. > Peter: > > Who's responsible in the MoM for registering animagi anyway? > Well, I wonder if this is all on the honor system. If someone > figured out how to become an Animagus, how would whoever was > responsible in the MoM for registering these people know? I mean, > unless there was some method of tracing budding Animagi, how would > the MoM have any clue? Peter again: Well, they have methods to find out about underage magic as well. Since there seems to be a high risk from animagi, why not use those methods to them as well? In case that had it didn't work too well. If you don't risk being detected why register anyway? Worse thought of mine maybe.... Bye Peter From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 19 14:38:42 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:38:42 -0000 Subject: Shipping Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89118 Shipping has never been a major topic of concern for me (at least for these books), but I would like to say two things: First, I don't think Ron and Hermione are going to end up together. (Well, I think Ron is going to die, but that's another thread.) After GOF, like most people I thought Ron and Hermione were going to go out, but in OOTP Hermione seemed only genuinely annoyed with Ron. He still is attracted to her (as evidence by his Christmas gift), but she does not seem interested in him. And since he does not seem as mature as she was in OOTP (or even Harry) I'm not surprised. JKR may change things in the future of course, and Ron may work up the nerve to ask her out, but as things stand now, I can't see Ron and Hermione lasting as boyfriend/girlfriend. Second, Harry is so messed up now and so much to worry about, I have trouble seeing him with anyone right now. Just from OOTP alone, he learned that his father was a jerk at one time, that DD makes mistakes, that he (Harry) thinks he has to kill someone or be killed, and that he thinks he was responsible for Sirius's death. He may get distracted by a pretty face again, but Hermione, Ginny, Luna, or anyone else who might be interested n him would be wise to steer clear of him for now. I think one continuing tread in the books is that Harry and Hermione are going closer as friends, but I don't see anything romantic yet. After he vanquishes LV and if he is still alive, he might turn around and see Hermione standing there. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 19 14:40:54 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:40:54 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del: > And as far as the Patronuses (Patroni ?) go, I'd like to remind that > Harry didn't manage to produce a good real one until the Lake Attack. > And even then, he only managed to produce it because he already knew > he would manage. During Lupin's lessons, he sure learned to produce > something, but it was feeble enough that neither he nor Lupin could > identify the stag. > Geoff: Not sure that's true.... "He didn't stop to think. Plunging a hand down the neck of his robes, he whipped out his wand and roared, 'Expecto patronum.' Something silver white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wand. He knew it had shot dirctly at the Demenors but didn't pause to watch; his mind still miraculously clear, he looked ahead - he was nearly there. He stretched out the hand still grasping his wand and just managed to close his fingers over the small, struggling Snitch." (POA "Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw" p.194 UK edition) "'That was quite some Patronus,' said a voice in Harry's ear. Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin who looked both shaken and pleased." (same page) We don't know for certain that it's a stag because Harry is concentrating on other things but it's big and Lupin thinks its quite something. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jan 19 14:52:58 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:52:58 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" wrote: > > Berit replies: > > > DD says Voldemort fears the mysterious force in the MoM-room. But > how can Voldemort fear what he seems to have used the better part of > his life to get: immortality/everlasting life? Have you thought of an > explanation to this seeming discrepancy? > > > {Anne Responds} > > What is Voldemort really after? 'Life'? Sort of...but then, with > normal, everyday 'life'...there is always Death to follow. Even > Phoenix's 'die'--rebrithing from the ashes young and anew. > I gave a sort of answer to Berit's question a while back when trying to understand what DD meant when he said there are worse things than death. IMO there are - an eternal existence being one of them. Can you think of anything worse? Anne asks a cogent question arising from my argument - what would happen to Voldy if it is life in the room and he were exposed to it? Being alive includes accepting all the pain, regrets, remorse and responsibilities that arise from your own actions. Could Voldy face those? Kneasy From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 19 15:13:20 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:13:20 -0000 Subject: Centaurs and Goblins and Elves, Oh My ! (WAS: Hermione's Hats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89121 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: >> Hermione is a child. She is just begining to become aware of social injustices in the wizard world. It makes sense that she would take up the elf cause because it is something that she sees everyday in school. (It's true that she needs to look at the elf issue not from her "priviledged" point of view but through the eyes of elves.) I think we need to cut Hermione a break. She is after all a smart girl--and she will learn.<< I think Hermione has a wise head, and a foolish heart--just the opposite of Ron, in fact. Ever notice how Ron is right on instinct but gets into a muddle when he tries to use his head? Well, Hermione is the reverse, IMO. When her passions are aroused, she tends not to think things through before she reacts. This isn't a bad way to be, but she needs to learn to listen when she's told her passions are getting the better of her. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jan 19 15:16:40 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:16:40 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89122 Pippin wrote: > j) Some vampires are outlaws, hunted and slain by the Ministry > of Magic (GoF) Is this based on the exchange between (alleged or reported?) Rita and Percy? I always understood this to mean that the MOM do *not* hunt down vampires, and they a legal basis not to, which was about to be quoted by Percy. Rita's POV would be that the MOM should get on and sort out the law so they can do the right thing, as I understand it. I guess my interpretation is in part based on my experience of UK tabloids, which usually have no compunction about urging the government to do illegal things, on the grounds that the law being so badly PC is the government's fault anyway. David, who can't remember the POA references From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 19 15:23:04 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:23:04 -0000 Subject: the Malfoys at the Quiddich World Cup In-Reply-To: <122.2a721540.2d3cb2de@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89123 > Cassie wrote: > Now, I personally can't imagine Lucius getting so incredibly bombed > that he risks loosing his respectable face and his wife just >letting him skip off to play with the muggles. Maybe he just decided to 'go with the flow'. Still...it seems like an odd and stupid move on his part. Mandy here: Lucius doesn't seem like the 'go with the flow' type to me. He's more likely to lead the flow. However I do agree that it does seem like a stupid risk for him to make. But then again this is not the only stupid decision Lucius Malfoy has made recently. Leading the raid on the MoM in OotP is, IMO, just about the most risky and stupid thing Lucius Malfoy could have done. To risk the years of credibility, the elite social and political reputation he has built up for himself and his family, only to throw it away on playing a petty thief in the MoM!! It beyond my comprehension why he agreed to do it. Of course he may not have had a choice, LV could have commanded him to lead the MoM raid to prove his loyalty. But we know that LV didn't command the DE's riot at the Quidditch World Cup, that was purely their own doing. Perhaps Lucius Malfoy is not quite a smart as he want us to think he is, or he simply cannot control him self at times of violence and death. Well, now he's in Azkaban and he must be really angry. I can't wait to see how he handles that. ;-) Mandy From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Mon Jan 19 15:38:16 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:38:16 -0000 Subject: things about magical plants Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89124 hi, Neville's favorite plant mimbulus mimbletonia is the only magical plant that has a name that mirrors Lamrackian system, I mean the scientific name of plants and animals. So are the other magical plants and animals scientifically named? And this leads me to other things. Students at Hogwarts have Herbology which deals with magical plants and Care of Magical Creatures which deals with magical animals. But shouldn't they also learn something about ordinary animals and plants? Granted they don't require to learn muggle ways of doing things but are they so sequestered from muggles that they don't even have to know anything about plants and animals and other basic things about our planet? After all they live on earth don't they? They do have Muggle studies as an elective but that subject seems to about muggle technologies and organisation rather than natural world. spangb From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 19 15:51:36 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:51:36 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: <357D54E8-4A7B-11D8-87B1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89125 Kneasy: >>I'll even confess that it can get to be addictive, promoting ideas, speculations, theories that deviate from the comfort of the mainstream consensus. It can be a lot of fun, just so long as I remember to support the case with some sort of logical argument, however slight or elliptical.<<< I know the feeling . Kneasy: >>> Whatever is in *the room* is supposed to be a damn near irresistible force, outranking death, intelligence, natural forces and other mysteries such as the nature of time. That narrows the field down for us. It is also not unique to Harry; DD implies as much at the end of OoP. Besides, if it were unique to Harry how could the Ministry possibly study it in a locked room that he has never entered? It is, however, a force that he is full of, suffused with, and that Voldemort detests it. It is presumed to be the force that saved Harry at Godric's Hollow and prevented possession in the Ministry battle.To the fans rooting for steadfastness, fidelity, courage, lov etc., this confirms them in their beliefs. "See? Doesn't that prove it?" Er, no.<< David speculated about what artifact might be in the Room itself. I think no wizard has ever been inside, for what lies beyond the door, IMO, is not any of the things mentioned, worthy as they are, but The Source of them all. I speculate that Harry will have to pass through The Veil in order to defeat Voldemort, and that because he did this willingly, he will be allowed a choice: either to "go on" as Nick put it, or to return at a price. I think he will return, emerging from the locked door, at the cost of his powers. Thoughts? Pippin From suzchiles at msn.com Mon Jan 19 16:25:54 2004 From: suzchiles at msn.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:25:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89126 Peter queried: > I wonder by the way what "job" Lucius has. Does he just live from his > fortune? > Funny, I was pondering the Malfoy fortune over the weekend. It's nice to have a big vault full of galleons, but over time, it's going to disappear. In the Muggle world, families like the Malfoys invest their money. Not only do they receive interest and dividends, but often make extremely large profits on investments (well, at least before the big bubble burst a few years back). I wonder if there are serious investment opportunities in the Wizarding World or if famiies like the Malfoys dabble in Muggle finanaces. Suzanne From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jan 19 16:30:08 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:30:08 -0000 Subject: Hermione, House-elves and Centaurs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89127 Despite her compliment to me, I want to only half-agree with Debbie (89097). I also want to disagree with Pippin (89121). I agree that Hermione lacks crucial understanding of the elves and their desires and, indeed, lives by a different value system from them (and the centaurs). However, I believe that, in the values implicit in JKR's writing, Hermione is fundamentally right about the house-elves: it's merely her strategy that's misconceived. My understanding is that in reality the same underlying value system is being applied across all species, but each species is blinded in a different way. I think the Sorting Hat's message about house unity can indeed be extrapolated to other species: in fact it is not the position of elves and centaurs that is problematic for me in the context of the series' ethics, but that of Dementors and other apparently intrinsically dark beings. I find it hard to give chapter-and-verse canon support for this kind of thing, as it tends to be formed from minor impressions made by seemingly sympathetic characters. In the case of House-elves, both Arthur Weasley and Dumbledore appear to support Hermione's basic thesis, not that an unfairly enforced (magical) contractual arrangement should be enforced fairly, but that it should be abrogated. I have (I suspect now frequently) pointed out before that the house-elves own nervousness of Hermione in GOF speaks to me that her campaign touches an unconscious appreciation of this by them. In that sense I disagree with Pippin about Hermione's heart; I think that it is in the wider text's right place, with Ron's. Where Hermione tends to go wrong, IMO, is in her estimate of the dignity and individuality of *all* other beings, including humans. In her worse moments, she regards them as things to be manoeuvred and manipulated. She does this most famously in COS when she uses emotional blackmail on Harry and Ron to make he Polyjuice Potion. But her whole deconstruction of Cho Chang, although it is presented as sympathetic, comes across to me as frighteningly detached: she really has swallowed the 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' textbook. I think the centaurs are enlightening in this respect. Hermione tries to manipulate them (admittedly under pressure of an extreme crisis) and it's her bad luck that, thanks to past history, it is on this score that they are peculiarly sensitive. The centaurs go too far the other way, because they assume that all wizardly actions are manipulative. Most interesting of all, IMO, is the case of Kreacher. Hermione agrees with Dumbledore that he should be treated well. However, throughout she gives the distinct impression of believing that with a little bit of TLC Kreacher will turn into a paragon of liberal virtue, willing to fight against everything the Blacks formerly stood for. IMO, JKR distances herself from this thinking crucially, by allowing Kreacher to make evil choices. Thus the very thing that might argue for continued repression and control - that elves can't be trusted - is turned into a key plank of the case for their freedom. Just as in COS, Dobby is in essence a free being long before Harry formalises it, so in OOP Kreacher is. Both Dobby and Kreacher basically do what they want while nominally enslaved. In my opinion, between them they completely make the case for Hermione's vision, while destroying that for her strategy. So, I think that the text is moving decisively against subtle hands- off manipulativeness with the partial eclipse of its two chief practitioners, Dumbledore and Hermione (I leave the case of Lupin to Pippin). Oddly enough, these usually unrepresentative wizards are here completely in the tradition of the historically weak wizarding world, which achieves its ends through secrecy and manipulations such as the memory charm. However, I do not believe the text is abandoning its implicit claim of universal values. To me, werewolves, giants, house-elves, centaurs, merpeople and goblins are all morally and ethically speaking human beings in this universe. The differences between them are not essential but cultural. David From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 19 16:31:36 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:31:36 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Pippin wrote: > > > j) Some vampires are outlaws, hunted and slain by the Ministry > > of Magic (GoF) > > Is this based on the exchange between (alleged or reported?) Rita and Percy?<< It's based on the claim of the besotted young wizard at the World Cup, GOF ch. 9, who claimed to be a Vampire Hunter who had killed about ninety of them. Dave: > I always understood this to mean that the MOM do *not* hunt down vampires, and they a legal basis not to, which was about to be quoted by Percy. < The way I interpret it there are Vampire Hunters -- like bounty hunters--whose job is to bring in rogue Vampires dead or alive (undead or alive?), while Rita was campaigning for a Final Solution. Vampires, as Beings and part-humans, have civil rights, but are subject to punishment if they break the law. Rita wants those rights cancelled and vampires stamped out. Now of course there may be no such thing as a Vampire Hunter at all...more of JKR's celebrated ambiguity at work. > David, who can't remember the POA references< Chapter 3 *** Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one. **** Chapter 10 **** Harry squeezed himself through a crowd of sixth years and saw a sign hanging in the farthest corner of the shop (UNUSUAL TASTES). Ron and Hermione were standing underneath it, examining a tray of blood-flavored lollipops. Harry sneaked up behind them. "Ugh, no, Harry won't want one of those, they're for vampires, I expect," Hermione was saying. ***** Pippin remembering that one cause of jaundice is the breakdown of red blood cells. Are healthy vampires white and waxy, while jaundice is the symptom of a vampire who is not getting a proper diet? From cubs9911 at aol.com Mon Jan 19 15:27:40 2004 From: cubs9911 at aol.com (cubs99111) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:27:40 -0000 Subject: The Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89129 Is it possible that JKR introduced the veil as a way to kill voldemort? We know that Harry can't use his wand against Voldemort so how would he kill him? Maybe he could push him through the veil and let Sirius deal with him. ANy thoughts? JR From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 16:04:51 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:04:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry after the Dark Lord In-Reply-To: <20040119124325.31244.qmail@web41406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040119160451.15551.qmail@web11309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89130 --- Stan Kosmoski wrote: > I see the books ending with Hogwarts announcing the > first permanent Defense Against the Dark Arts > Teacher who will remain more than 1 year - Harry > Potter. After all, he started teaching the class > in OOP didn't he? >From The Connection 12 October 1999 J.K. Rowling Interview Transcript "...one of the characters, one of Harrys classmates, though its not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but ----"..."No, its not Ron. I cant see Ron as a teacher. No way." ROLSHAN __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From dalriada26 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 16:31:54 2004 From: dalriada26 at yahoo.com (Dalriada) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:31:54 -0000 Subject: Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89131 Like other posters, I've also been thinking about Fawkes' role in the books but I have different questions. I've used the infamously inaccurate Yahoo search, looked through "Fantastic Posts" and the HP Lexicon but can't find the exact answers I'm looking for. Hopefully, someone in our group can point me in the right direction. After re-reading GoF, my questions are specifically about phoenix feathers. I'd like to know: *When did Fawkes drop the feathers that were used in LV and HP's wands? Did Fawkes leave one feather back in the 30s for the wand of Tom Riddle then drop another later? Or, were both dropped at the same time, the "brother wands" created then, one given to Tom and the other kept in storage for the right owner? *According to the Lexicon, Fawkes came with the office when Dumbledore became Headmaster. When did DD know his bird gave the feather for LV's wand and did he know there was a brother wand out there? If the second wand was created later (perhaps after the prophecy) did DD order Ollivander to keep the wand until the boy named in the prophecy came along? *Speaking of Ollivander, how does he come into possession of these specific feathers? I don't know if there are answers to these questions. Forgive me if they've all been asked before. Truth be told, I joined HPfGU a little while ago but I'm a lurker who checks the messages only periodically. Any info would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Dally From kathryn-jones at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 16:32:10 2004 From: kathryn-jones at comcast.net (jmjklj) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:32:10 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89132 > I speculate that Harry will have to pass through The Veil in order > to defeat Voldemort, and that because he did this willingly, he > will be allowed a choice: either to "go on" as Nick put it, or to > return at a price. I think he will return, emerging from the locked > door, at the cost of his powers. > > Thoughts? > > Pippin Oh I hope not! For the first five books, the magical world has been Harry's only true "home", a place where he truly belongs. If he lost his powers, he would no longer really fit in and he'd be "squib- like". Granted, he'd be the ultimate hero, having given up what he valued for the sake of all wizard-kind and the magical world in general. Some have speculated that maybe at the end of the series that all discrimination in the magical world would end, and there may be an open relationship with muggles! If Harry was "lowered" to squib- like existence in a new world where muggles and the magical world coexisted, that wouldn't be as dramatic. I would hate to see muggles and the magical community united. That is purely selfish, given it's awfully nice to leave the "real world" for a quick jaunt to the Potterverse! Honestly, I think I'd rather see Harry die than lose his powers. I can't believe I'm writing those words. I dread that fact that I deep down think that Harry will die. But that would be better than Harry living without his powers. How could Harry live without his Firebolt? -ktg From dh.shrijnana at verizon.net Mon Jan 19 16:12:48 2004 From: dh.shrijnana at verizon.net (shrijnana) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:12:48 -0000 Subject: things about magical plants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89133 Hi, This is my first posting to this group, tho I've been reading for a while. I did a degree in Biology a while back and the comment about Mimbulus sent me looking for plants with a similar scientific name. > Neville's favorite plant mimbulus mimbletonia is the only magical > plant that has a name that mirrors Lamrackian system, I mean the > scientific name of plants and animals. There is a genus of plants called Mimulus. It sounded similar, so I looked up its properties on a web site for healing plants: this is what it has to say: "[Mimulus]..is the remedy for known fears. In other words whenever you are frightened of something or you are anxious about something, and you can say what that something is, then Mimulus is the remedy to take. Mimulus fears are everyday fears - fear of public speaking, of the dark, of aggressive dogs, or of illness or pain. Phobias such as the fear of spiders or of birds are also Mimulus fears, since the cause of the fear can be named. Where the phobia is very great so that the sight of a spider for example causes sheer terror, then Rock Rose might be given as well as or instead of Mimulus. And where the fear is diffuse and there is general anxiety and apprehension without a specific named cause then Aspen is the remedy to consider. Mimulus is used as a type remedy for people who tend to be nervous, timid and shy generally. Sometimes people of this type may blush easily or stammer, and they will usually avoid social occasions and any event where they will be in the limelight. Mimulus is the remedy to encourage the quiet courage and strength that lies hidden in such people, so that they can face the everyday trials of life with steadfastness." Uncle Algie gave Neville the plant at the beginning of OotP and Neville seems much less fearful than in previous books. There's been some speculation about Neville's family, but I think Great Uncle Algie is definitely a good influence on Neville. It is interesting that Mimulus only works for known fears... other plants are recommended when the feared object cannot be articuluated. Any ideas what else (besides Snape) Neville might know he is afraid of? - Shrijnana From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 16:26:53 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:26:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) References: Message-ID: <001a01c3dea9$0d086880$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89134 > Sophierom: > > While I love these ideas, particularly Debbie's characterization of > Ron and Percy as "bookends driven apart by the noisy, attention- > getting twins," I think we should not overemphasize the similarities > between the two brothers. As JKR has made abundantly clear > throughout the series, it is individual choice that really makes the > person. bboy_mn's insight that Percy is trapped in a dysfunctional > cylce is a very astute and sensative analysis, but ultimately, I > believe that JKR would argue that it was Percy's choice as an > individual, not some inevitable reaction to family dynamics, that > led him to become a pompous twit. I also believe that Percy has > the choice to return to his family and provide a real service for > the Order (and I think he may very well do this in the end.) > Debbie: I'm not sure I can respond to this without igniting the contentious debate that erupted long ago over whether the twins are bullies. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43024) Although there has been much debate about the subject, I believe that the twins' treatment of Percy over the years went beyond sibling rivalry and practical jokes. The twins knew of Percy's sensitivities, yet persisted in baiting him. For example, I thought the Humongous Bighead joke was cruel. So, when George says that they're "well shut [shot in the UK edition] of him" I feel that it's a bit of the self-fulfilling prophecy, as in "if that's how he's going to react to criticism, we're well rid of him" when they have been feeding his alienation all along. Fred and George are written in OOP in such a way to suggest that JKR approves of them very much. She seems to have a taste for slapstick humor, and for those who engage in it, even when it's hurtful to others. While ultimately everyone is responsible for his/her own actions, our actions can also affect others' actions, intentionally or unintentionally. Percy's rift with his family hurts everyone, Molly especially, and I don't sense in the twins any acknowledgement that their own actions contributed to the current state of affairs. I admit to not liking the twins much, and a big part of it is that while they're quite funny on the surface, they create those laughs by preying on the sensitivities of those who can't or won't fight back in kind. That's bullying, and I can't approve of it. > But so far, what makes the similarities between Ron and Percy so > important -and I believe the case for their similarities was very > strongly presented - what makes these similarities so important is > how the brothers use these similarities to create such different > personalities. The idea that both of these Weasleys have taken their > analogous character traits and behaved so differently makes a > fantastic parallel to Harry and Tom Riddle. > Percy is in a very different position from Ron -- he is the oldest of the younger children, with an apparently significant age gap between Percy and the next oldest brother -- and Ron is the youngest. Percy probably spent most of his pre-Hogwarts years in a position of (relative) responsibility for 4 younger siblings, while Ron, as the other end of the bookend had no similar responsibilities. The differences between their personalities are fairly typical for oldest vs. youngest children. For what it's worth, I agree that Percy is not likely to be *Evil*, certainly not in the DE sense. He has made some bad mistakes, but there is still a chance for him to return to the family. I have every expectation that Percy will try to atone for his sins, but wonder if his pride will prevent him from outright apologizing; instead, he may do something from the inside in an attempt to make amends. It's for this reason that I think Percy's story could have a very tragic outcome. Debbie who has some old posts on this topic: Percy as Tragic Hero: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/58796 Bullies (Round Two): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/65818 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 19 17:18:54 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:18:54 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" > wrote: > > Del: > > And as far as the Patronuses (Patroni ?) go, I'd like to remind > that > > Harry didn't manage to produce a good real one until the Lake > Attack. > > Geoff: > Not sure that's true.... > > "He didn't stop to think. Plunging a hand down the neck of his robes, > he whipped out his wand and roared, 'Expecto patronum.' > Something silver white, something enormous, erupted from the end of > his wand. He knew it had shot dirctly at the Demenors but didn't > pause to watch; his mind still miraculously clear, he looked ahead - > he was nearly there. He stretched out the hand still grasping his > wand and just managed to close his fingers over the small, struggling > Snitch." > > (POA "Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw" p.194 UK edition) > > "'That was quite some Patronus,' said a voice in Harry's ear. > Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin who looked both shaken and > pleased." > We don't know for certain that it's a stag because Harry is > concentrating on other things but it's big and Lupin thinks its quite > something. Jen R: We find out later in POA that Harry did produce a stag at the Quidditch match, when Dumbledore tells him, "Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi....And then I remembered the most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr. Malfoy down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw." (chap. 22, pg. 428) Dumbledore doesn't exactly say Harry produced a stag during the Quidditch match, but his comment is in the context of Harry "finding James within himself" to produce Prongs the night by the lake. Also, at the hearing in OOTP, Harry tells Amelia Bones the corporeal Patronus he produced was "a stag, it's always a stag." (US, chap. 8, p. 141). Jen, getting back into posting by being a LOON :). From john at sunstoneonline.com Mon Jan 19 18:03:27 2004 From: john at sunstoneonline.com (ecdc2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:03:27 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised and the Future Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89136 I was thinking about the Mirror of Erised as I've been rereading the books and thought I'd postulate a theory that's most likely been put forth to the group long before now :) We know from the Sorcerer's Stone that the Mirror of Erised is capable of giving people what they see in the Mirror - Harry retrieves the stone after seeing himself get it. It is unclear from the text whether this is the result of a spell of Dumbledore's or from the magic of the Mirror itself. Does this make it possible for what Ron and Harry saw to come true? I only suggest this because it seems like Ron might be on his way. He sees himself as head boy, and as holding the house cup and the Quidditch cup - and he's Quidditch captain too. That was in book one. Here we are in book five and Ron is on the Quidditch team, and he's a prefect. This suggests the possibility that what he saw in the Mirror could actually happen. It also suggests the possibility that what Harry saw could also happen - albeit perhaps after his death. Perhaps he'll be surrounded by his family, just as he saw in the Mirror. Thoughts? (And feel free to holler at me if this has already been discussed a million times - I just don't remember seeing it.) John From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 18:12:54 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:12:54 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: <001a01c3dea9$0d086880$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89137 vmonte responds: Sorry, but I don't think that Fred and George are evil to their brothers. Nor do I think that Ron is like Percy. I also don't think that Ginny is like Fred and George. What I do think is that Percy just doesn't have a sense of humor about himself. Brothers and sisters often tease and torment each other when growing up. I am teased and tormented by my brother and sister all the time (I also tease them) and I enjoy it. Sometimes you need family to bring you back into reality and let you know when you start taking yourself too seriously. Just so you know, I may tease my brother and sister, but I would never let anyone else pick on them. I'm not sure that Percy is evil,druged, or whether he is just a fool. In the end he may realize his mistake and save someone in his family. From jkscherme at adelphia.net Mon Jan 19 18:43:32 2004 From: jkscherme at adelphia.net (Kristen) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:43:32 -0000 Subject: things about magical plants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89138 (major snip) > > Uncle Algie gave Neville the plant at the beginning of OotP and > Neville seems much less fearful than in previous books. There's been > some speculation about Neville's family, but I think Great Uncle Algie > is definitely a good influence on Neville. It is interesting that > Mimulus only works for known fears... other plants are recommended > when the feared object cannot be articuluated. Any ideas what else > (besides Snape) Neville might know he is afraid of? > > - Shrijnana Me: Well...let's see. I'd say Neville's afraid of his grandmother's disapproval. Or, maybe, his grandmother altogether. She's pretty formidable. madeyesgal (who thinks that Neville will be the one who returns to Hogwarts as a teacher.) From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Mon Jan 19 18:49:46 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:49:46 -0000 Subject: Being (Re: What's in the locked room?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89139 Kneasy, so many thanks for message 89108! Thanks for your open mind I also like your idea of Life being what hides behind the locked door in the MoM. You are right when you say: "When apparently conflicting ideas claim the same bits of evidence as proof you begin to wonder. Are they different entities after all? Some of them are quite difficult to separate with overlapping causes, effects and appearances. Or could it be that they are all parts of the same thing? It seems to me that these are all evidence of a living being - they're by-products of human existence. No life and there's no love, nor staunchness, nor intelligence nor any of them. Life is the root of all. What more fascinating subject to study? What is it? How did it start? Can we recreate it? Questions to keep the Natural Philosophers going for centuries. Even the Alchemists are in on the act - can we prolong it indefinitely?" Ah, yes, the Alchemists. We mustn't forget them, for after all, it all begins with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" But I'm not here this evening to speculate about Alchemy in the books, though it is my favourite topic. I'm here to answer the question you ask at the en of you last post, when you write (message 89120): " Anne asks a cogent question arising from my argument - what would happen to Voldy if it is life in the room and he were exposed to it? Being alive includes accepting all the pain, regrets, remorse and responsibilities that arise from your own actions. Could Voldy face those?" Answering the very last question, I would say "NO". You use the word "Life", and you are right. I agree with you, it's a fascinating subject to study. But it's not only a physical phenomenon; it's also a philosophic matter. JKR suggests that all along the series. Life is not only a conjunction of chemical, physiological,etc, functions. It's also BEING, and it implies consciousness. A heart beat is not merely a heart beat if we take it from a metaphysical point of view. It means that your body "works", but it also means that you have a soul, a spirit. What we call "Anima" in Latin. Life is Being, it's facing consciousness. Now, how does Voldemort deal with his own consciousness? Well, he doesn't deal with it. Voldemort? I'd better say : Tom Marvolo Riddle. Tom didn't manage to deal with his consciousness, and that's why he created Lord Voldemort. Consciousness is something burning, and because it was burning him too much, Tom tried to escape from it. The solution he found was to fashion himself a new identity. At the beginning ( if things are like I'm suspecting they are) there was a miserable boy who suffered from being what he was: an orphan, a half-blood wizard boy living amongst Muggles. He and his mother had been rejected by their father and husband; it was an infamy according to the social ethic of that time. Tom was also responsible, in a certain way, for the death of his mother. Well, there were too many things that he couldn't bear concerning himself. He didn't like what he was seeing every time he was facing himself. Being Tom Marvolo Riddle was unbearable, so he decided to be someone else, and he created Lord Voldemort. What an easy solution he would cancel poor Tom and create another Being. Instead of the son rejected by his father, he would become the heir of Slytherin. Instead of the son of a dead mother, he would become the vanquisher of death, and the death maker. Instead of suffering, he would make suffer The problem was that Voldemort wasn't an improvement. The evidence? He looks like a serpent, i.e., like an animal. Could JKR have found a better image to tell us that this guy doesn't want to face what makes a human be a human? He hides himself behind an animal aspect. Actually, Tom didn't create but a mask. It wasn't another Being. You can change your name, you can change your behaviour, you can change your aspect. You can't change what makes you be what you are: your consciousness. And Tom can't bear his own consciousness. Look what he says at the end of GoF, when he tells the Death Eaters what he felt when his "Voldemort's body" vanished after his attempt against Harry. He says that he felt "Pain beyond pain". I would bet that when he says that, he's not referring to physical pain. He didn't become what he is without suffering physically, I suppose. He might have past through so many transformations and spells that he probably learned to deal with physical pain. No, I'd rather say that the loss of his body put him face to face with what he couldn't bear: his naked consciousness, his naked Being. After all those years trying to convince the others, but more especially himself, that he was not what he was, he suddenly had to face his true Being. Pain beyond pain. All his unsolved problems came back. He had to face plainly his consciousness. Doesn't sound familiar? That's what Harry has to do all along OotP, and more especially at the end. Harry's burning scar is a metaphor of his burning consciousness. Dear Harry I would say that he is another mask Tom invented in order to fool himself and to hide from his own consciousness. If we read the prophecy, we can understand that Harry is Tom's creation. Tom created Voldemort first, and then Voldemort created a foe, "another one" who would keep Tom so busy that he wouldn't have to face the only thing that really bothered him: his Being. The fact Voldemort wanted to destroy Harry in order to protect himself is not just a narrative figure; it's also a psychological metaphor. All the things Tom does tend to one goal: silencing his own human consciousness. He says that his goal is to vanquish death, but it's actually a very long suicide. Not from a physical point of view, but from a psychological, a spiritual point of view. Tom can fool the others with the Voldemort's disguise; he can even fool Harry manipulating his dreams. But he can't fool himself, he can't fool his own consciousness. So, probably, he won't be able to face what is locked behind the mysterious door, if it is indeed Life, especially in its metaphysical manifestation, i.e; Being. But Harry will be able to do it. Simply because he's able to face a mirror, and because he is "just Harry". Pfff End of that post. Hope I didn't bother you (HPfGU members) too much. Amicalement, Iris Post Scriptum: Kneasy, don't worry when you have the feeling that you are "ploughing a lonely furrow". As Voltaire said: "Il faut cultiver notre jardin". No matter if you are alone while you do it. You do it, that's the more important. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 19 18:56:48 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:56:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione, House-elves and Centaurs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Despite her compliment to me, I want to only half-agree with Debbie > (89097). I also want to disagree with Pippin (89121). > > I agree that Hermione lacks crucial understanding of the elves and their desires and, indeed, lives by a different value system from them (and the centaurs). > > However, I believe that, in the values implicit in JKR's writing, > Hermione is fundamentally right about the house-elves: it's >merely her strategy that's misconceived. I think so too. Her heart is in the right place, but she's so blinded by her passion for justice that she doesn't use her head. She doesn't ask herself whether the strategy she has chosen is ethically or empirically sound, and she refuses to listen when she's told that it isn't. In that, IMO, she's a bit like Crouch Sr. Ron, in GoF, correctly perceives that Harry is being distant with him. But, beguiled by false logic, he never asks himself whether his deductions are consistent with his understanding of Harry; he just assumes that Harry has changed. > > My understanding is that in reality the same underlying value system is being applied across all species, but each species is blinded in a different way. I think the Sorting Hat's message about house unity can indeed be extrapolated to other species: in fact it is not the position of elves and centaurs that is problematic for me in the context of the series' ethics, but that of Dementors and other apparently intrinsically dark beings.< I would say that some of Rowling's creatures lack free will because they are projections of the choices that humans (and other Beings) make. The grindylow is such a demon: malignant to those who fear the water, but benign to the Merpeople who keep them as pets. In the Potterverse, the ability to choose is constrained by one's nature. Our choices show what we are, but not everyone gets the same ones. We haven't seen a Dementor choose to be merciful; it may not be in their nature any more than it is in the Sphinx's. Because of Dobby, we know that freedom for House Elves is possible. Presumably Dobby was subject to the same brain-washing as the other Elves; how did he resist it? That's what Hermione should be trying to find out. Pippin From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 19:23:08 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:23:08 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised and the Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89141 --- ecdc2 (John) wrote: > > We know from the Sorcerer's Stone that the Mirror of Erised is > capable of giving people what they see in the Mirror - Harry > retrieves the stone after seeing himself get it. > > Does this make it possible for what Ron and Harry saw to come true? Constance Vigilance (me): You knew that I couldn't let this one get by . It is certainly possible that the things in the mirror may come to pass. But don't forget, The Mirror Lies (for further information, see my published works). Yes, we see Harry retrieving the stone after he saw it. But we also saw Quirrell (<--- obligatory Quirrell reference) retrieving the stone and he didn't. The mirror only shows what the viewer wants. If those things do come true, I think it is only a coincidence that it was first seen in the mirror. The fact that things seen in the mirror have a good chance of coming true is the fact that viewers tend to go after what they want, so the vision in the mirror is aligned with the outcome that the viewer is striving for. While I certainly hope that Ron gets all the accolades that the mirror presented, and I also hope that the people in the mirror really existed/exist for Harry and that he will find joy in the arms of his family, I don't think that seeing these things in the mirror is any reliable indicator of the future. ~ Constance Vigilance, Quirrell Lives! From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 19:27:39 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:27:39 -0000 Subject: Being (Re: What's in the locked room?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89142 --- iris wrote: > Kneasy, so many thanks for message 89108! Thanks for your open mind > I also like your idea of Life being what hides behind the locked > door in the MoM. Constance Vigilance (me): While I have been enjoying the discussion, I'm not convinced that it is Life that is behind the locked door. The only reason I think so is that we sort of already have a Life room - that being the flip side of the Death room. If your reasoning is that Life is finite and can be studied, then wouldn't a study of Death serve that purpose? I may have totally missed the point of the scholarly discussions thus far. I'm willing to be corrected. ~ Constance Vigilance, Quirrell Lives! (Gee, a whole post without the Q-word coming up!) From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 17:03:40 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:03:40 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at > > > the age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. > > Frost: > > No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. > > Crucio is not the same as a AK. The difficulty is still that he > > tried to use an unforgivable, but was unable to. I think Bellatrix actually covered this one for us. You have to really MEAN them (Unforgivable Curses) in order for them to work. No book in front of me for an exact quote, but, she says something along the line of, "righteous anger won't last for long" Even Harry noticed that after he cast the spell, she did fall on the ground, but she didn't scream or writhe in pain. He DIDN'T mean to really cause her pain, he was angry. He was't trying to kill anyone, he may have said it in the death chamber, before he ran after Bellatrix, but for those of you familiar with the old Jack Lemmon movie, 12 Angry Men, saying that you want to kill someone doesn't mean that you actually want them dead. From pfsch at gmx.de Mon Jan 19 17:00:07 2004 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:00:07 -0000 Subject: The Podmores: Sturgis and Sir Patrick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89144 Hi there! Just reading CoS (ch. 8, p. 136 UK) again I read the name of Sir Patrick Delaney-Podmore, a fully decapitated ghost a denies Nearly Headless Nick hunting. The name Podmore rang a bell. Any relationship to Sturgis Podmore? Bye Peter (perhaps headless soon if the 500th to ask that) From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 18:25:19 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:25:19 -0000 Subject: Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89145 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dalriada" wrote: > *According to the Lexicon, Fawkes came with the office when > Dumbledore became Headmaster. Actually I'd like to see canon supporting that Fawkes came with the office. In COS, (Sorry, no reference I'm at work) Harry enters Tom Riddle's 'memory' and finds himself in the Headmaster's office. He makes a note of the fact that this office does not belong to Dumbledore yet, and he specifically says there's no Fawkes there. From abbet69 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 18:59:18 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:59:18 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Harry go to Grimmauld Place? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89146 Why didn't Harry just go to Grimmauld Place instead of just sticking his head in the fire. He could have checked the house for Sirius and if he wasn't in the house, at least he was in London by himself without putting his friends in danger. I don't think there's any reason not to believe Harry could use the Floo Network from Umbridge office. Abbet From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 19 19:45:35 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:45:35 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89147 I know I am going to get slaughtered for saying this (and I have enjoyed the discussion as much as anyone) but are we all forgetting that when push comes to shove, these are children's books - wonderful for adults to read and speculate about, but nevertheless originally written for children. Thinking about the sub-teen Potter obsessives in my own family and their friends, I wonder how many of them are going to understand the concepts that have been mooted here. Truth, Life, etc. are fascinating ideas for adult speculation, but I honestly think the only one a ten-year-old would readily grasp is the idea of Love. Even the youngest of her readers will have experienced the power of Love. So, much as I would like it to be Truth, I think afterall it will be simply Love. Sylvia (OK, kill me now) From hbasra at emich.edu Mon Jan 19 17:35:47 2004 From: hbasra at emich.edu (Herman) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:35:47 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89148 I was reading OOTP again and read this paragraph... on page 658. Harry after he declares that he wants to talk to Sirius and George/Fred give an idea. "What do you think about this?" Hermione demanded of Ron, and Harry was reminded irresistibly of Mrs Weasley appealing to her husband during Harry's first dinner in Grimmauld Place. This added with all the little bits of evidence added before confirms in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and Ron. Herman S. Basra From abbet69 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 19:01:51 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:01:51 -0000 Subject: Underage magic & the Unforgivable Curses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89149 If the MoM can track underage magic, why can't they track the Unforgivable Curses? Abbet From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 20:48:56 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:48:56 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Harry go to Grimmauld Place? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, abbet69 at y... wrote: > Why didn't Harry just go to Grimmauld Place instead of just sticking > his head in the fire. He could have checked the house for Sirius and > if he wasn't in the house, at least he was in London by himself > without putting his friends in danger. I don't think there's any > reason not to believe Harry could use the Floo Network from Umbridge > office. > > Abbet The simple answer to your question is that JKR says so: she needed to get Harry to the Ministry of Magic, duel with the DE's, loose his godfather and learn about the prophecy, and she did so in v. dramatic fashion. If Harry had just leapt into the kitchen at Number 12, waltzed upstairs and found Sirius tending to Buckbeak's wounds, then we would have been denied a great battle sequence, the tragic death of a great character and the most important chapter in HP cannon: The Lost Prophecy. But the answer you are looking for is slightly more difficult. The simple fact of the matter is that Harry is, for all intents and purposes, a fifteen year old boy, and the more complex fact of the matter is that there is no easy way to understand how the brain of a fifteen year old boy works (trust me, I live with one who hasn't the sense to come out of the rain). There are lots of things that Harry *should* do but doesn't. There are dozens of incidents in the books in which our boy hero finds himself in a situation where a simple solution (one that the readers are probably screaming out at him) would have saved him a lot of bother and trouble and drastically changed the course of the novels. For exampe, in GoF, after he has figured out the egg clue and is stuck in the stairs under the invisibility cloak with his Marauder's Map just out of reach, I know I was screaming "Accio Harry! Accio you idiot!" Had he done that, he could have retrieved both the map and the egg, and kept Fake!Moody from using the map in the plot to kill his father. My point, and I do apoloize for being so long winded, is that sometimes the obvious solution doesn't occur to Harry, or to anyone that age. Plus it also sacrifices plot points. Meri (who after seeing Return of the King is sure Frodo and Sam took the long way around, and could have gotten to Mordor faster though without all that good plot and character development) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 20:51:26 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:51:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Herman" wrote: > I was reading OOTP again and read this paragraph... on page 658. > Harry after he declares that he wants to talk to Sirius and > George/Fred give an idea. > > "What do you think about this?" Hermione demanded of Ron, and Harry > was reminded irresistibly of Mrs Weasley appealing to her husband > during Harry's first dinner in Grimmauld Place. > > > This added with all the little bits of evidence added before confirms > in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and Ron. > > Herman S. Basra That's an excellent point that I didn't notice. I also loved that Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just knew he was going to be a sweet boyfriend! Meri - who sadly must return to lurkdom after the end of her school holiday From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Mon Jan 19 20:52:55 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:52:55 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why didn't Harry go to Grimmauld Place? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89152 Who in their right mind would leave an open floo connection between hogwarts and the open with Voldemort breating down their necks? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: abbet69 at yahoo.com To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why didn't Harry go to Grimmauld Place? Why didn't Harry just go to Grimmauld Place instead of just sticking his head in the fire. He could have checked the house for Sirius and if he wasn't in the house, at least he was in London by himself without putting his friends in danger. I don't think there's any reason not to believe Harry could use the Floo Network from Umbridge office. Abbet ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 20:55:48 2004 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:55:48 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Anne asks a cogent question arising from my argument - what would happen to Voldy if it is life in the room and he were exposed to it? Being alive includes accepting all the pain, regrets, remorse and responsibilities that arise from your own actions. Could Voldy face those? > Kneasy AP here, joining your "lonely furrow": Your post reminded me of something that bothered me when I first read OoP. Like many others, I assumed that it was Harry's love for Sirius that saved him from possession by Voldemort -- at first. Later, that didn't seem to be quite right. I mean, I know there was love, but it seemed a lot more complicated than *just* love. I came to the conclusion that maybe it was Harry's capacity to *feel* so strongly that made him unacceptable as a vessel for Voldemort. On looking back into the book, I found these lines that seemed to confirm my conclusion: "There is no shame in what you are feeling, Harry," said Dumbledore's voice. "On the contrary . . . the fact that you can feel pain like this is your greatest strength." (p. 823) and "Harry, suffering like this proves you are still a man! This pain is part of being human ---" (p. 824) I agree with your insightful posts. Harry is so full of humanity - of being able to feel for others - of life -- everything that Voldemort has rejected. I like the idea that what Voldemort sees as the ultimate weakness and has such contempt for is actually the power that is going to bring him down. (hoping this makes sense -- my five-year-old keeps asking me questions that I actually have to answer - can't just say "uh-huh") From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jan 19 21:01:39 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:01:39 -0000 Subject: Will Harry lose his powers was Re: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89154 Pippin wrote:- > > I speculate that Harry will have to pass through The Veil in order to defeat Voldemort, and that because he did this willingly, he will be allowed a choice: either to "go on" as Nick put it, or to return at a price. I think he will return, emerging from the > locked door, at the cost of his powers.>>> KTG replied:- << > Honestly, I think I'd rather see Harry die than lose his powers. I can't believe I'm writing those words. I dread that fact that I > deep down think that Harry will die. But that would be better than Harry living without his powers. How could Harry live without his Firebolt?>>> Ali:- Like Pippin, I imagine Harry losing his powers to save the WW, and like KTG, I totally dread the possibility. Harry can live without his Firebolt, it's only a material possession. He's had to live without it for much of OoP. But, he has never had a *life* without his wizarding powers. Prior to going to Hogwarts he lived, but didn't really have a life. The WW gives Harry friends, fun, adventure, sport, success and a raison d'etre. To give up his wizarding powers would be giving up everything which at this point Harry values about himself, how he defines himself, a real self-sacrifice. And yet, Harry doesn't really fit into the WW. He spents a large part of his time being rejected by it, and remains an object of curiosity to most people. Perhaps he could learn to live without his powers. Perhaps he could live in the Muggle World and fit in. In PoA Harry doubts whether his friends would abandon him even if he was cast out as a criminal. I doubt whether his friends would abandon him even if he lost his powers. Perhaps, Harry will decide that his magical gifts are not really so important as the friendships and values which he holds dear. In terms of Harry going beyond the Veil. I also think he will do. But, I see it more as a voyage of discovery. Perhaps to understand more about the dead, perhaps to seek advise from those he has loved and those he wanted to know and love. Perhaps to understand how to destroy Voldemort. I think he might return from beyond the Veil knowing what the risks are. But, at this stage, I'm not sure if Harry would chose to come back to the WW without his powers rather than the Afterlife surrounded by his family and Sirius. I can see him making that choice to save people he loves, but not (right now) for himself alone. Another possible fate which awaits Harry is the Kiss. The Kiss is presented as something which is worse than death. By taking the soul away, and leaving someone with no sense of self, it would appear that the victim is denied an afterlife. JKR does not spell this out. But if the victim continues to exist, but can then die and enjoy the afterlife, the Kiss wouldn't seem to be such a terrible trauma. Although it would be horrible for those around them, the victims wouldn't realise their state, and wouldn't be able to feel suffering. Then they would die. I think JKR must be in a bit of a dilemna. So far, she has used secular Christianity to show the closeness of British Wizards to British Muggles, but aside from that, religion is not really discussed in the Potterverse. But, if Harry does go beyond the Veil, and does then experience the Afterlife for us, JKR risks changing this. There are religious themes there. The Kiss is the loss of one's soul. Dumbledore talks of Death as the "Next Great Adventure". But a trip to the Afterlife (which is what I'm assuming lies beyond the Veil) will clarify JKR's vision even further. I will be interested to see how she does this. Ali From kirst_inn at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 19 21:43:24 2004 From: kirst_inn at yahoo.co.uk (Kirstini) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:43:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89155 I've finally finished my chapter summary ? apologies for handing it in slightly late in the day. I'm very much aware that my questions at the end have a rather school-marmish ring to them ? I've been doing some work as a private tutor, and I'm busy preparing two of my tutees for their preliminary exams just now, so I just seem to be thinking in that sort of mindset. Sorry `bout that. Please feel free to ignore, or come up with your own Kirstini ******************************************************************* Chapter 10 opens with a description of Harry's dreams the night before he leaves for Hogwarts again. He has obviously been very affected by both Ron and Hermione becoming prefects and by seeing Mrs Weasley with the Boggart, as these feature briefly before his dreams shift again to the corridor and the locked door. Harry is woken by Ron and rushed out of the house by Mrs Weasley. Everyone is flustered and worried that they'll miss the train. We learn that the reason for the delay is that Sturgis Podmore hasn't shown up to help guard Harry on the way to the station. Sirius disobeys Dumbledore's orders and adopts his Animagus form in order to accompany Harry. Harry is amused by Sirius' reaction to this comparative freedom, and Sirius plays up to this, chasing cats in order to make Harry laugh. When they arrive at Platform 9 ?, Harry feels re-energised by the familiar smell of the steam train, and it hits him that he's really being allowed to go back to Hogwarts. However, JKR uses the rest of this chapter to confuse both Harry and the reader by disrupting the familiar conventions of the journey and turning them against him. The Order see the children onto the train. There are the usual rumblings of foreboding from Mad-Eye, and Sirius horrifies Mrs Weasley by drawing attention to himself on the platform, both when he says goodbye to Harry and when he chases the train out of the station. Once on the train, the first surprise in store for Harry is that Ron and Hermione are not going to be sitting with him for most of the journey, as they have responsibilities in the Prefects' carriage. Harry is left alone with Ginny, who does her best to cheer him along. However, Harry's sense of isolation multiplies when he encounters the whispers and stares of the other pupils, who have been reading the Daily Prophet and believe him to be a liar. Neville joins them, Ginny persuades the boys to sit in a compartment with "Looney Lovegood", and we are introduced to Luna for the first time. Although Harry has encountered new adults in all of the other books, this is the first time since PS that the readers have been formally introduced to a new student character (I'm including Fleur and Krum with the adults, and both Cedric and Cho were introduced as opponents at Quidditch rather than being studied at length like this.). The passage is rather similar to the introduction of Professor Lupin in PoA and this, combined with the choice of chapter heading, immediately assigns Luna a certain prominence. As is her wont, JKR begins with a physical description, honing in on exactly what makes Luna stand out ? her prominent eyes and odd choice of accessories. Harry decides that Luna is "distinctly dotty", and understands why Neville was unwilling to sit with her. What is particularly interesting about this part of the chapter is the impression of *Ginny's* character that we receive. This is the first time the reader has been exposed to Ginny without either her family or Hermione around, and although the narration is primarily focussed on Luna, we discover a lot about Ginny from her reactions to Luna as compared to Neville's or Harry's. Although she calls Luna "Looney", Ginny is not afraid to be seen with her. She comes across as remarkably self-possessed and secure in her own image, particularly when contrasted with Harry later in the chapter. I found this exchange particularly significant: " `I'm nobody,' said Neville hurriedly. `No you're not,' said Ginny sharply. `Neville Longbottom - Luna Lovegood.'" Whether Ginny speaks "sharply" in order to reprimand Neville for rudeness or to tell him off for calling himself a "nobody" here, it functions to put across a very different image of Ginny from that built up in the previous books. The narration then focuses in on Neville for a time. We are reminded ? yet again ? that Neville is very forgetful, that he has an interest in Herbology, and of his unusual family circumstances. He shows off his new pet cactus ? the Mimbulus Mimbletonia ? to Harry, and there is a comic moment where he accidentally manages to cover the whole of the carriage in Stinksap. This chapter only focuses on the comic aspects of Neville's personality, and no mention is made ? even in passing ? of his parents or their tragedy. While the carriage is recovering from the Stinksap attack, Cho Chang drops by to see Harry, much to his embarrassment. Although the Stinksap is bad enough, Harry is also embarrassed to be seen sitting with Neville and Luna rather than "a group of very cool people". Some time later, Ron and Hermione return from the Prefects' carriage. We learn the names of all the new fifth-year prefects, and that Draco Malfoy is the male prefect for Slytherin. Ron makes a joke about Goyle and Luna reacts with rather disproportionate laughter, which confuses Ron. Harry takes this opportunity to flick through Luna's magazine, The Quibbler, and reads a story about Sirius moonlighting as "singing sensation" Stubby Boardman, and one about Cornelius Fudge's nefarious plans for Gringotts and his love of goblin pie. Hermione makes a scathing remark about the Quibbler, and Luna, who reveals that her father is the editor, takes offence. Draco, Crabbe and Goyle pay their bi-annual visit to Harry's compartment and the usual stand-off occurs when Draco teases Harry about the fact that he isn't a prefect and is second-best to Ron. He informs Harry that he'll be "dogging" his footsteps. Only Harry and Hermione notice anything significant about his word-choice, and Harry panics that Malfoy's father has recognised Sirius. We are then given a description of the weather during the train journey. In PoA, the sky was dark and cloudy for a time before beginning to rain; in GoF, there was heavy rain and a storm. Both of these descriptions could be seen as forecasting the events of the book to come, and many HPfGU members were anxious to know what the weather on the OoP journey would have to say about the events of the book. It remains "undecided" ? alternating between "half-hearted" rain and "feeble" sun before clouding over. Night falls, the train draws into Hogsmeade, and our intrepid heroes disembark. There is some confusion in animal-holding, and the Harry encounters a further disruption of his routine, as Hagrid is not there to greet them at the station ? his familiar shout for "firs' years" being undertaken by Professor Grubbly ?Plank, the substitute teacher from GoF. Harry worries about what might have happened to him, but reassure himself that Hagrid must just have a cold. Almost immediately after this, Harry is startled to discover that the carriages which take the pupils up to Hogwarts are no longer horseless. The Thestrals are described as very eerie, unappealing beasts, adding a further note of discord to both Harry and the reader's experience. Harry is further isolated from Ron when he discovers that Ron can't see them, and ends the chapter in discomfort after Luna informs him that she can see them, that they've always pulled the carriages, and that he's just as sane as she is. With the obvious exception of CoS, where the journey is made in the flying Ford Anglia, the chapter detailing the journey on the Hogwarts Express is the most consistently similar throughout the books. What effects do the disruptions of the familiar have on the reader's expectations for the book? Is there a sense that, by introducing a new character, subverting Harry's expectations for the journey, deliberately taking time out to describe the weather and spending a lot of time over aspects of the story ? like Neville's cactus ? which might be seen to be deliberate red herrings, this chapter seems to be slightly more self-aware than the others? Does an awareness of reader expectation pervade the chapter? Have Ron and Hermione been deliberately marginalized in this chapter in order to allow the secondary trio of Neville, Ginny and Luna more page space in which to develop? How does this chapter prepare the reader for the major themes of the book? Discuss! From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 19 21:53:47 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:53:47 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: Sigune: > I entirely agree with Iggy. > PLEASE let it not be Truth. That would be scary, spooky and far too > absolute. The existence of Truth would mean that there is a clear- cut > Right (anything or anyone adhering to the Truth) and a clear-cut > Wrong (those who do not adhere to the Truth). That is extremely > dangerous - and very unsatisfactory in a story that thematises > tolerance. Let there be imagination, and speculation, and quests, and > uncertainty, and people trying to make the best of it. Geoff: I do not accept that the existence of a clear-cut Right (CCR) and a clear-cut Wrong (CCW) denies tolerance. There have to be CCRs and CCWs. If there weren't, there would be no physical constants for a start and the universe wouldn't function. We wouldn't be here.... We, as humans, are not necessarily privy to these CCRs and CCWs although we may be seeking after them. As a result of this human condition, we fall between them. This is where the speculation and quests and inagination come into play because people /do/ try to make the best of it by seeking to reach out to these targets and deciding what they actually are. If there are no CCRs and CCWs, in the same way as I suggested we have to have Basic Absolutes of Truth and Love, people would do what they wanted regardless of others (The "I'm all right, Jack" syndrome). Some people still do take this line but, whatever our cultural background and social mores, we all have a clear-cut conscience which we can either follow (like Harry) or fight against (like Voldermort) and that conscience supplies a background of CCRs and CCWs against which we can measure our progress as individuals. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 22:10:53 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:10:53 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Felix Schuster" wrote: > Hi AmanitaMuscaria! > > > AmanitaMuscaria again: Why do you assume Malfoy only had Dobby? All > > Malfoy actually says is, 'You've lost me my servant, boy'. He never > > says, you've lost me my only servant. I can't see the Malfoys > > relying on only one, rather dubious, houseelf? Do you believe Dobby > > could have just suddenly become rebellious? I would assume he's > > always been a bit of an oddity. > > Peter: > I regret that I cannot give you the exact point of that quote > but in GoF or (more probably) OotP, Draco tells his mates that his > mother now had to do all the housework by herself. So I assumed there > aren't any more elves in the Malfoy Manson. > > I wonder by the way what "job" Lucius has. Does he just live from his > fortune? > > Bye Peter bboy_mn: I would very much like to see that quote, because I don't remember it from any of the books. Of course, I don't have the greatest memory, but none the less, I still have my doubts. If Dobby was the only Malfoy Elf, why wouldn't Malfoys just go down to the House-Elf Relocation Office (it's really, I didn't make it up) and get a new house-elf? Certainly, someone as rich and powerful as Lucius wouldn't have a problem getting a new elf. Personally, although I can't back it up with data from the book, I suspect they had more than one elf. What does Lucius do for a living? He takes money and uses it to make money. Basically, he is a businessman, but not in the sense of running a shop, more in the sense of someone who invests his money in assorted, and sometimes questionable, business ventures. This is very typical of how wealthy people made money in 'the good old days'. They would do things like finacially back a shipment of goods in return for a percentage of the profits. Basically, they would do anything to make a 'buck', or Galleon as the case may be, although, I think they favored things that had a quick turn over. If you saw the movie Nicholas Nickleby, mean nasty Uncle Ralph Nickleby essentially made his money by talking his friends into giving him their money so he could invest it, one can only, and reasonably, assume the money was invested in a variety of business ventures. I think that's what Lucius Malfoy does, provides financial backing for a variety of short term business venture from which he takes a handsome share of the profits. It take money to make money. Just a thought. bboy_mn From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 19 22:45:09 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:45:09 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" > wrote: > > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at > > > > the age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. > > > > Frost: > > > No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. > > > Crucio is not the same as a AK. The difficulty is still that he > > > tried to use an unforgivable, but was unable to. > > > I think Bellatrix actually covered this one for us. You have to > really MEAN them (Unforgivable Curses) in order for them to work. No > book in front of me for an exact quote, but, she says something > along the line of, "righteous anger won't last for long" Even Harry > noticed that after he cast the spell, she did fall on the ground, > but she didn't scream or writhe in pain. He DIDN'T mean to really > cause her pain, he was angry. He was't trying to kill anyone, he may > have said it in the death chamber, before he ran after Bellatrix, > but for those of you familiar with the old Jack Lemmon movie, 12 > Angry Men, saying that you want to kill someone doesn't mean that > you actually want them dead. sachmet96 OotP UK, p. 715 "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you boy?[...]You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteaus anger won't hurt me for long - I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lessen -" She actually sees by his failed atempt (no wonder it's his first time that he used it and it usually takes a few tries to get a curse right) what the cause of him not being successfull is and provides him with the information how to do it right (she acts like a teacher). She doesn't say he won't be able to do it. I am sure for his next try he would have been better at it. He just didn't put the right feelings into them the first time but I still think he meant to hurt her so he would have gotten it right the next time. What makes me so convinced he really tried to hurt her is that he compares the reaction she has to his cuse with the reaction Neville had to the curse. So he expected to see her in pain, wanted her to be but simply got the curse wrong. And I am convinced that at that time he wanted her dead (it was just too short a time since Sirius died) so there was no time for any logical thought or time to cool down his feelings. And he is a person who acts on his emotions all the time before thinking. I think he wanted to kill her at that moment and if he succeeded would have regretted it later. And he is ruthless enough to kill/hurt without batting an eye (or spending a second thought on it) as was seen in PS with Quirrell and Voldemort. In PS after he realized he could get rid of Quirrell he intentionally "caught Quirrell by the arm and hung on as tight as he could" (PS, UK p.214). He didn't spend a thought on the fact that he just hurt/probably mortally wounded Quirrell. Yes, it was in self defence and I don't expect him at that moment to spend much thaught about that, but at least after he woke up in the infirmary he could have asked what happened to Quirrell but doesn't even think about it. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 23:40:54 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:40:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89159 Meri here, answering Kirstini's questions: > With the obvious exception of CoS, where the journey is made in the > flying Ford Anglia, the chapter detailing the journey on the Hogwarts > Express is the most consistently similar throughout the books. What > effects do the disruptions of the familiar have on the reader's > expectations for the book? Meri: I think it serves the same purpose as GoF opening in a scene other than Privet Drive: it shows us that we should be expecting some major changes in this book, and because this change happens directly to Harry, it serves to emphasize that Harry's world is in for some severe disruptions. Almost everything he loves or is familliar about life at Hogwarts (DADA lessons, Quidditch, Dumbledore's friendship and counsel, visits to Hagrid and being able to one-up Malfoy and hate Snape in peace) is gone, and this is one of the main themes in the book. Harry's world is changing. But I was pleased about one thing in the chapter: that even without Ron and Hermione around, Harry still has companionship (Ginny, Neville, Luna) and than even though he is sometimes seperated from his friends, R and H will always come back to him. Loyalty is a good thing, which is one of the other major themes of the book. Kristini asks: > Is there a sense that, by introducing a new character, subverting > Harry's expectations for the journey, deliberately taking time out to > describe the weather and spending a lot of time over aspects of the > story ? like Neville's cactus ? which might be seen to be deliberate > red herrings, this chapter seems to be slightly more self-aware than > the others? Does an awareness of reader expectation pervade the > chapter? Meri again: I am not sure how much of JKR's writing is influenced by what the fans expect to see, but this chapter does seem to be planting things for the future. I read somewhere (and for the absolute life of me I can't remember where) that when JKR names a chapter after a character or references a character in a chapter title that character will be important. "The Boy Who Lived" (Harry), "The Keeper of the Keys" (Hagrid), "The Potions Master" (Snape) "Dobby's Warning" (Dobby), "Cat, Rat and Dog" (Crookshanks, Scabbers/Peter Pettigrew, and Sirius), "Mad-Eye Moody" (Fake! Moody), "The Madness of Mr. Crouch" (Barty Crouch Sr.)and "Detention With Delores" (Prof. Umbridge) are all examples of this. This only seems to tell me that there will be further significance to Luna Lovegood to the plot, and like some of these characters, she may be more than she seems. I know that there has been speculation that Luna is a Seer, but I need more info/cannon before I buy that one. Kristini: Have Ron and Hermione been deliberately marginalized in this chapter > in order to allow the secondary trio of Neville, Ginny and Luna more > page space in which to develop? Meri: I think that the "secondary trio" have been given their own space for a reason. They are the ones who go with Harry to the DoM and prove to be some of his greatest assets through that battle and the DA. I think that there is more to these three than meets the eye, but I don't know if R and H were "marginalized". I think that we are just recieving a glimpse of upperclassmen life at Hogwarts, through their prefect's meeting. Kristini asks: > How does this chapter prepare the reader for the major themes of the > book? Meri concludes: As I wrote before, this whole chapter is about the disruption of Harry's familiar world. He spends his first Hogwarts journey out of the company of Ron, he is exposed to the lunacy of Luna, he is mortified in front of Cho, he sees the thestrals for the first time and Hagrid is missing from the train depot. In fact, the only thing that remains consistent in the chapter are Harry's enemies, ie: the confrontation with Crabbe, Goyle and Malfoy. But, in the end, all of Harry's missing friends return to him, more or less in one piece, and we see their loyalty to him, something that heartens him after the tragic conclusion of the book. Anyway, just my two thoughts worth. Meri (who was impressed with herself for remembering all those chapter titles in her head) From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 23:42:24 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:42:24 -0000 Subject: Hermione, House-elves and Centaurs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Despite her compliment to me, I want to only half-agree with Debbie > (89097). I also want to disagree with Pippin (89121). > Joining Pippin in claiming to agree with David more than he thinks. ;-) > However, I believe that, in the values implicit in JKR's writing, > Hermione is fundamentally right about the house-elves: it's merely > her strategy that's misconceived. > Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I agree that the house-elves should be freed. The issues are how to go about freeing them, teaching the elves to manage their freedom, and equally importantly educating the WW to accept them. While Dobby and Kreacher demonstrate that the elves are capable of managing their own affairs, Winky demonstrates the cultural issues that need to be addressed on both sides if freedom is going to work. I think Dumbledore recognizes this, and that's why the elves at Hogwarts remain enslaved, and also why it was a good thing for him to hire Dobby. Dobby (despite his weirdness) is a much more effective catalyst for freedom than Hermione's do-good notions. ::pause to grimace at the gender of the elves that can cope and the one that can't:: I think the Sorting Hat's message about house > unity can indeed be extrapolated to other species: in fact it is not > the position of elves and centaurs that is problematic for me in the > context of the series' ethics, but that of Dementors and other > apparently intrinsically dark beings. > This is, in my view, an issue of attempting to distinguish (much harder in the WW than in our world where we can readily distinguish humans from non-humans) which creatures are *beings* who are capable of moral action. There's no evidence that the Dementors are capable of moral choices. They feed on human emotion. If they cannot control their appetite for it (and there's no evidence that they can) then their cooperation cannot be obtained. > Where Hermione tends to go wrong, IMO, is in her estimate of the > dignity and individuality of *all* other beings, including humans. > In her worse moments, she regards them as things to be manoeuvred > and manipulated. She does this most famously in COS when she uses > emotional blackmail on Harry and Ron to make he Polyjuice Potion. Yes, it's a bit hard for a teen to appreciate that other points of view can be equally valid. She seems to think that if the goal is worthy, than it's fine to use others as pawns. She's really quite shocked when the centaurs don't cooperate. > However, I do not believe the text is abandoning its implicit claim > of universal values. To me, werewolves, giants, house-elves, > centaurs, merpeople and goblins are all morally and ethically > speaking human beings in this universe. The differences between > them are not essential but cultural. > I do have trouble with the concept expressed in the last sentence. To the extent that any of these species is endowed with special talents or abilities (or disabilities) not shared by humans, the differences are not cultural, and the solution is not simply to appreciate the differences. I especially have problems including werewolves in this category. During the full moon, a werewolf is not human. Many real-world human analogs have been suggested for werewolves; I favor the notion that werewolves are like the mentally ill. On a day-to-day basis many mentally ill persons, especially those whose illnesses are episodic appear fully functional, but they can be dangerous to themselves or to others because they are incapable of exercising the restraint that a fully functioning human would. Admittedly, the WW has overreacted to the danger that werewolves present, because their werewolf episodes are completely predictable. There is no reason to shun their company other than at the full moon. Yet it's not just cultural: werewolves *are* dangerous, as Lupin's example makes clear, they can't be relied upon to take their medications, and therefore they do need to be controlled during the full moon. As another example (though with less clear canon support), Firenze implies that centaurs as a group have an ability to divine the future that is not generally shared by humans. I sense that there are physiological differences between how humans and centaurs absorb and process information that are at the root of their disagreements. We don't know the extent to which giants or elves may, as a species, be differently abled,, or whether the elves' enthusiasm for service and the giants' violent tendencies are cultural responses to their situation. Hermione's conclusion in GoF ("it's just bigotry, isn't it?") does seem a bit too simplistic. What we do know is the the WW's handling of all non-humans has been condescending and destructive of the kind of cooperation needed to deal with Voldemort, who represents a threat to all species. If that was not the case, we wouldn't need Hagrid and Olympe to go on a desperate mission to the giants, and Bill wouldn't have so much trouble convincing the goblins not to cut a deal with Voldemort. Perhaps we'll know that the WW has made real progress when the MoM renames the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures to Department of Magical Creature Cooperation. Debbie From kathryn-jones at comcast.net Mon Jan 19 21:41:36 2004 From: kathryn-jones at comcast.net (jmjklj) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:41:36 -0000 Subject: Will Harry lose his powers was Re: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89161 Pippin wrote:- >>>>I speculate that Harry will have to pass through The Veil in order to defeat Voldemort, and that because he did this willingly, he will be allowed a choice: either to "go on" as Nick put it, or to return at a price. I think he will return, emerging from the locked door, at the cost of his powers.>>>> KTG replied:- >>>If he lost his powers, he would no longer really fit in and he'd be "squib-like". Granted, he'd be the ultimate hero, having given up what he valued for the sake of all wizard-kind and the magical world in general. Honestly, I think I'd rather see Harry die than lose his powers. I can't believe I'm writing those words. I dread that fact that I deep down think that Harry will die. But that would be better than Harry living without his powers. How could Harry live without his Firebolt?>>> Ali then wrote:- >> Like Pippin, I imagine Harry losing his powers to save the WW, and like KTG, I totally dread the possibility. Harry can live without his Firebolt, it's only a material possession. He's had to live without it for much of OoP. But, he has never had a *life* without his wizarding powers. Prior to going to Hogwarts he lived, but didn't really have a life. Perhaps, Harry will decide that his magical gifts are not really so important as the friendships and values which he holds dear. Another possible fate which awaits Harry is the Kiss. The Kiss is presented as something which is worse than death. By taking the soul away, and leaving someone with no sense of self, it would appear that the victim is denied an afterlife. JKR does not spell this out. But if the victim continues to exist, but can then die and enjoy the afterlife, the Kiss wouldn't seem to be such a terrible trauma.>> There is so much foreshadowing and/or his acceptance of death throughout all five books to support Harry's death. (in addition to Trewlaney's continual predictions ) In PS/SS, he readily accepted his impending death by Voldemort, continuing on to get the stone. In CoS, he also accepted death after being bit by the serpent. He seemed more concerned about Ginny than himself. In GoF, he decides to die standing like his father. And of course in OooP, he accepts death and the reunion with Sirius. Often discussion is centered on how Harry SURVIVES these near-death experiences or how he has defeated Voldemort. But what about his attitude toward death? He doesn't seem to fear, dread or run from it. He almost welcomes it. Why? Is Rowling softening us? When Harry looked in the mirror of Erised, he was with his family. We've seen self-sacrifice before. Pippin suggests there may be a choice and Harry would choose to live without powers rather than "go on" to the next adventure. Ali rightly argues that the Firebolt is a mere material possession. True. And of course his friends would not shun him. But would he WANT this life rather than the next adventure, which we've already seen evidence that UNLIKE headless Nick, he's not afraid to take that path? I think he'd rather die. I really don't want to see it, though. I'm the woefully hopeless romantic who wants to see him live to be an auror or a Quidditch star, or marry someone and live happily ever; I just don't think it's going to happen. Let's hope I'm wrong. (and I would hate to see a Dementor Kiss, too. I hope Ali's thought is wrong, too! ) -ktg From barbara.jo at juno.com Mon Jan 19 23:31:28 2004 From: barbara.jo at juno.com (Barbara Dunlap) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:31:28 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89162 I have two questions about the Weasleys (at least just two right now). First of all, I have seen many people mention the "missing" Weasley son. I tried to find references to this in the FAQs and by searching, but with no luck. Could someone either explain this or point me in the right direction? Also, I am currently re-reading OOtP and noticed the discussion on Chapter 9. Mrs. Weasley's boggart was mentioned, but no one discussed the fact that it took the shape of everyone in her family (and Harry) except Charlie and Ginny. I find it interesting that they were not shown. Is she not as concerned about them, or is there another reason? It makes me more likely to think that they would be the ones injured (or killed) since JKR pointed us in the direction of the others. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Barbara From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 19 23:49:10 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:49:10 -0000 Subject: The Locked Room...Duh duh dah! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89163 I know, it's been discussed to death, well not literally. Anyways, this might seem stupid, and I'm sure I'll be made aware if it is, but can the - whatever is greater and more terrible than death- can it be magic? I've read the posts that speculate whether it's life or love or truth or Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans, but one thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is, well, magic. The very source of the wizarding world's existence. The reason, or purpose, for all of it. Doesn't magic have the capacity to be considered universal in interpretation? If anyone out there can give me an explanation of what JO actually considers to be magic, it might help. If not, Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans is getting my vote for "What's behind the locked door?" poll! From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 00:47:29 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:47:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89164 With the obvious exception of CoS, where the journey is made in the > flying Ford Anglia, the chapter detailing the journey on the Hogwarts > Express is the most consistently similar throughout the books. What > effects do the disruptions of the familiar have on the reader's > expectations for the book? > Is there a sense that, by introducing a new character, subverting > Harry's expectations for the journey, deliberately taking time out to > describe the weather and spending a lot of time over aspects of the > story ? like Neville's cactus ? which might be seen to be deliberate > red herrings, this chapter seems to be slightly more self-aware than > the others? Does an awareness of reader expectation pervade the > chapter? > Have Ron and Hermione been deliberately marginalized in this chapter > in order to allow the secondary trio of Neville, Ginny and Luna more > page space in which to develop? > How does this chapter prepare the reader for the major themes of the > book? I think that what JKR is starting to show us here is Harry developing a sense of being able to be ok, even without Ron and Hermione. This is a theme that I've seen developing through the books, but I think that it's really starting to take over. Let me explain... In book 1, Harry has Ron almost from the beginning and Hermione quickly joins them. This is the first time that Harry has experienced friendship. The relationship between the three is emphasized strongly in the whole book, straight to the end where the trio is responsible for defeating Voldemort (yes, ultimately Harry does the defeating, but he'd never have gotten there without Ron and Hermione's help). In book 2, Harry's relationship with Ron and Hermione is again emphasized, with Hermione being key to the story's plot (the polyjuice potion, and even the plan to brew the potion come from Hermione) and Ron is there through everything, at Harry's side, until the very end when Lockheart prevents it. Again, Harry does the actual defeating but Ron and Hermione are key. In book three, Voldemort is not the primary focus (for the first time) and again Ron and Hermione are by Harry's side to the end, rescuing Sirius and Buckbeak and supporting him as a friend. Book four is really the first time that Harry is forced to deal with a lot of stuff on his own, although never fully. Hermione never believes that Harry deliberately tried to get into the tournament, and after the first task Ron comes around. However, for the first time, Ron and Hermione can not help Harry when it comes down to the final tasks, getting to Voldemort. For once Harry's on his own, although he has Cedric, until his death. Harry is forced to think entirely on his own and deal with everything without any assistance, until the wands join and he gets the images from Voldemort's wand. And here's where things shift. At the beginning of book 5, Harry is isolated. Ron and Hermione both want to let Harry know what's going on, but they can't. Harry feels a sense of isolation that is paralleled only by GoF when Ron is angry with him and Harry only has Hermione. This is much stronger, and is confusing to Harry. By the train ride, Harry has started to get over his isolation and immediately discovers that he is again to be isolated. However, this time, Harry discovers (even if it doesn't totally help him right away) he has other people who are willing to be there for him. I think that the group of people is especially key here because they will also later be the people who go to the DoM with Harry, along with R & H. It is the first indication we have of how Harry handles the fact that he has other friends (even if he doesn't always see it). The fact that Luna is the title of the chapter makes me think two things: 1) this is our first introduction to Luna, who will later be key in the book. and 2) Luna will be key in later books as well. Clearly the influence that Luna has over Harry is great. She knows things that he doesn't know and very much wants to know. I have a feeling that Luna will be a key player in future books, in terms of Harry's emotional development (as a person, tho not neccesseraly as a SHIP). I think that this chapter is key in Harry's development. He needs to learn some independance from both R & H to be a successful person, a skill I think both R & H have already developed, but Harry has not quite mastered. A crucial part of growing up is finding out who you are away from your friends. I think JKR is starting to show us who Harry truly can become, and what kinds of flaws may be inherently in his personality. The train is a perfect place to do that, since it's a place Harry is familiar with but not without his best friends. Wow, longer than I expected. Sorry bout that! (Commence the tomato throwing and such) Cheers, Christy From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 01:09:26 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:09:26 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised and the Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecdc2" wrote: > I was thinking about the Mirror of Erised as I've been rereading the > books and thought I'd postulate a theory that's most likely been put > forth to the group long before now :) > > We know from the Sorcerer's Stone that the Mirror of Erised is > capable of giving people what they see in the Mirror - Harry > retrieves the stone after seeing himself get it. ...edited... > > Does this make it possible for what Ron and Harry saw to come true? > > ...edited... > > Thoughts? (And feel free to holler at me if this has already been > discussed a million times - I just don't remember seeing it.) > > John bboy_mn: I guess I can sum up my opinion in the fewest possible words (that's a first for me) by saying that the Mirror shows, but it doesn't give. Can what people see in the mirror come true? Yes indeed. How and why? Because the mirror shows people's deepest desire, and it's not that uncommon for humans to pursue the things they desire; a lover, a house, a car, a job, etc.... Given enough hard work, it's not uncommon for people to achieve their desires; even their deepest desire, whether that desire be for love, money, or achievement for achiement's sake. Ron became Prefect, got on the Quidditch, and even won the Quidditch Cup not because the mirror gave them to him, but because, in his own way, he persued them and he achieved them. Harry desires a family, and in one form he has found one, the Weasley family. As for a family of his own, in time, in one form or another, he will achieve that desire too. To predict that people will achieve what they desire, doesn't take a magic mirror. Just a thought. bboy_mn From astrid at netspace.net.au Tue Jan 20 01:54:55 2004 From: astrid at netspace.net.au (Astrid Wootton) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:54:55 +1100 Subject: Houses and classes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89166 Shaun Hately wrote: It depends on the school - houses are a convenient administrative grouping, so they are sometimes used to assign classes - but certainly not all schools do that. I had five years in schools run on British lines and from memory, we went like this. Peter wrote Forgive me asking, but was there also some kind of "sorting" into the houses? Or could you choose which house to go to? Did the teachers decide? Astrid writing now At school in the UK we had 10 houses in a school of 360. So 36 students to a house, with roughly 5 to each year level. We ate and slept, socialised, did ?prep? and played sport (twice a day: 8.00 ?8.30 am and 2.00?4.00pm!) in our houses, but classes were academically streamed into 3--4 streams, and thus about 50 students *across* houses were needed at each year level to divide students by perceived academic ability. 10 -- 18 students per class was normal. When arriving at the school it was possible to request a house, and some families always requested the same house, between siblings and across generations. If you didn?t request a house you were allocated one. Hogwarts having (I believe) about 280 students but only 4 houses, arrived at a similar class size, but classes were unstreamed. A [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jane_starr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 02:38:51 2004 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:38:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wondering about Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040120023851.99742.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89167 --- Barbara Dunlap wrote: > Also, I am currently re-reading OOtP and noticed the > discussion on Chapter 9. Mrs. Weasley's boggart > was mentioned, but no one discussed the fact that > it took the shape of everyone in her family > (and Harry) except Charlie and Ginny. I find it > interesting that they were not shown. Is she not > as concerned aboutthem, or is there another > reason? JES: Probably the boggart turned into Charlie and Ginny before Harry entered the room. It was apparent by Mrs. Weasley's state of upset that she had been facing the boggart for some time before Harry got there. JES __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 02:56:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:56:48 -0000 Subject: Will Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89168 "sawsan_issa" wrote: > Here's a thought, I read something that is small and could even not be > anything worth mentioning, but I read a line that seems to make me > think that Harry might live after all. > > In chapter 16 of PS/SS: the first line reads "In years to come, Harry > would never quite remember how he had managed to get through his exams > when he half expected Voldemort to come..." >,snip> > > Sawsan I agree with you that the sentence swerves strangely away from the usual Harry-at-the-present-moment point of view and it jarred me when I read it, as if JKR were giving away the ending of the books. I also agree that "in years to come" doesn't sound like "a few years later when he was in his seventh year." It sounds more like a mature Harry of at least forty-something reflecting on his youth. And note "never," which suggests an infinite or near-infinite number of years. It undoubtedly means "never in his lifetime," but paired with "in years to come" and what appears to be JKR's own omniscient perspective rather than the juvenile Harry's POV, I'd say that, yes, this is the best hint we've had that Harry will survive. Either that or we can regard the narrator as altogether unreliable, which I don't think is the case. I tend to think that the times when she shifts away from Harry's present perspective are the times when we can most trust her. (Even when she reports Mr. Dursley's thoughts in SS/PS chapter 1, we're not seeing from his perspective.) If I'm right and the narrator is reliable here, then Harry will survive into the Epilogue. Carol From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 03:19:41 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:19:41 -0000 Subject: Underage magic & the Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, abbet69 at y... wrote: > If the MoM can track underage magic, why can't they track the > Unforgivable Curses? > > Abbet Sophierom: My guess would be that only underage wizards' wands are tracked or registered and that once a wizard gets to be of age, her wand is taken off some sort of magical list. But it's been a while since I've read the books, so I could be wrong. This question makes me wonder, though (beware, I'm going into rambling mode) ... If the MoM had the ability to tell what types of magic an individual wizard was performing, that would be an incredible amount of power for the government. Not only could the government determine who was performing Unforgivables, but they could also see who was using magic to protest a government action, who was using magic to improve their sex life, etc. I wonder if British wizards developed a government that made privacy of spellcasting one of its major tenets? Is there a British WW constititution (written or customary)? Along those same lines, could there be a wizard police state out there? Would that be the end result if LV took over? And these questions lead back to a question I know that's been discussed in previous posts, but I just can't find them at the moment ... exactly what form of government exists in the British WW? The HP universe is that odd but really great mix of modern and pre-modern, ordinary and strange ... JKR lulls us into thinking we understand this place and bang! She throws in something quite startling. Okay, enough rambling. Sophierom - who would like to blame the rambling on the incredible amount of sugar she's had tonight! From happybean98 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 01:04:51 2004 From: happybean98 at yahoo.com (happybean98) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:04:51 -0000 Subject: Hermione, House-elves and Centaurs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89170 Jumping back into this conversation: Dave wrote: > However, I believe that, in the values implicit in JKR's writing, > Hermione is fundamentally right about the house-elves: it's merely > her strategy that's misconceived. I agree with this. It is true that the Hogwarts house elves don't want to be free. However, the system of slavery they are subject to, combined with their fierce pride and loyalty makes them extremely vulnerable to evil masters. Dobby bore the brunt of an evil master and wanted freedom. Hermione's strategy is misguided because she thinks she can trick them into freedom. Even if she had managed to trick them into picking up the hats...then what? > My understanding is that in reality the same underlying value system > is being applied across all species, but each species is blinded in > a different way. I agee that the same underlying value system is present across species and in the wizarding world. Species have strong insights as well as blind spots in their understanding of this as well as individual characters. > Where Hermione tends to go wrong, IMO, is in her estimate of the > dignity and individuality of *all* other beings, including humans. > In her worse moments, she regards them as things to be manoeuvred > and manipulated. She does this most famously in COS when she uses > emotional blackmail on Harry and Ron to make he Polyjuice Potion. Emotional blackmail is a harsh way to put it. I think the pressure she puts on Ron and Harry to go along with the Polyjuice is hasty, maybe a bit manipulative...but remember, Hermione is a mudblood, and therefore has a reason to be more fearful and desperate about closing the Chamber of Secrets than Ron and Harry. > But her whole deconstruction of Cho Chang, although it is presented > as sympathetic, comes across to me as frighteningly detached: she > really has swallowed the 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' > textbook. Now I completely disagree here. I laughed my way through this entire section. I didn't take Hermione's "know-it-all" explanation of Cho's behavior as saying "all men are this way" and "all women are that way" the way 'Men are from Mars' does. What I believe, and what I think Rowling is trying to show here, is how teenage boys truly are very confused about how teenage girls behave. (Note I'm classifying this as a purely adolescent growing pain, not generalizing it to grown men and women.) Think of Harry's bewilderment about Parvati's behavior at the Yule Ball in GoF. He's also a little slow in recognizing Ginny's crush on him, as well as Moaning Myrtle's in CoS. This adds to his charm, because a lesser character might try to use these things to his advantage. The reader, not just Hermione, is usually privy to Harry's blindness to certain female behavior long before he figures it out. (It takes him three books to figure out that Ginny had a crush on him...) When Hermione 'explains' Cho to Harry and Ron, she is playing the 'chum'. While she may seem to do it in a "know-it-all" sort of way,I don't think she means to belittle Cho, (She actually shows concern for her in OOP, page 460. After explaining Cho's vulnerability because of all she's been through, Hermione says, "You just had to be nice to her," said Hermione looking up anxiously. "You were, weren't you?") I think her logical way of approaching Cho's behavior may seem detached, but this is Hermione's style. Think of how she helped explain Ron's jealousy to Harry in GoF. I think Hermione's explanation of Cho's actions is correct. Actually, her explanation seemed humorous to me because I already figured as much while I was reading it. Now, that said, I don't think Hermione is TOTALLY free of an ulterior motive when she asks Harry to meet her in the middle of his date. This IS manipulative of her because she KNOWS Harry will most likely end up offending Cho in agreeing to meet her. I believe she does this not out of meanness but out of jealousy. I'll have to finish this post later...but at least it's a start. Kathleen From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 03:27:40 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:27:40 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Ministry Way Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89171 The Ministry Way (OOP, Chap. 8) To the tune of The Company Way from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Hear a brief excerpt of this song: http://users.bestweb.net/~foosie/howto.htm Dedicated to Constance Vigilance (cause she cared enough to ask) THE SCENE: The Wizengamot. Completely alone, HARRY faces CORENLIUS FUDGE, Senior Undersecretary DOLORES UMBRIDGE and the rest of the Ministers on charges of violating the restrictions on Underage Magic. FUDGE: When I heard the news Of this brash young man. Well I said to myself: "Now, brash young man, Keep on casting your spells - Our Wizengamot Will guarantee you get expelled!" UMBRIDGE (spoken): We play for keeps! FUDGE (music): We'll try you the Ministry way For Underage Magic on Wisteria Way. HARRY: I had to save my life . FUDGE: Why don't you save your breath? HARRY: Supposing the Ministry bears in... FUDGE: I'm bored to death HARRY: When can I say...? FUDGE: You shouldn't say! HARRY: Your court is a Ministry court Where trials of ol' Karkaroff And young Crouch were fought. FUDGE: The Ministry bureaucrats UMBRIDGE: Oh we'll sue you now! FUDGE: The Ministry leadership . UMBRIDGE: Has had a cow HARRY (spoken) Is there any place for defense? FUDGE (spoken): Unimportant! (Enter DUMBLEDORE who serenely steps in and takes a seat, much to the discomfort of FUDGE & UMBRIDGE) HARRY (music, aside) We'll now hear gallant speaking >From the defense Dumbledore has got my back DUMBLEDORE: I'm hoping that this courtroom will soon see sense HARRY (aside) But I cannot get him to make eye contact! UMBRIDGE: But Fudge plays it the Ministry way. FUDGE: How dare he, this Potter here to question clay! UMBRIDGE: You'll never lie out of this plot . FUDGE & UMBRIDGE: For there's one thing clear, Who raises the Ministry's ire Will not long be here! FUDGE (spoken) Ah, we'll certainly find his crime DUMBLEDORE (spoken, aside): They're klutzy... FUDGE (music): This rule is a Ministry rule UMBRIDGE: Break Paragraph C, sir, And you're out of school. FUDGE: Hey, that Underage Sorcery UMBRIDGE: Oh how vile, how coarse FUDGE: The Statute of Secrecy UMBRIDGE: Has to be enforced. HARRY (spoken, aside) That headache head witch, she's atrocious. FUDGE (spoken): So let's try him! DUMBLEDORE (spoken): Simply out of pique. FUDGE (music): Do you have any witness? (Enter ARABELLA FIGG in her housecoat, looking confused and anxious) DUMBLEDORE: I've a witness, Mrs. Figg saw `mentors glide FIGG: Oh yes I saw them running DUMBLEDORE: No, not running, you mean gliding, dear, so Harry has not lied! FIGG: Huh? DUMBLEDORE: So let's vote it, dear Ministers, pray, Executive clemency For my prot?g?. (A show of Wizengamot hands acquits HARRY) FUDGE: We've hardly got any hands HARRY (joyously): Now I'll have no fear. In spite of the Ministry's ire I will still be here. DUMBLEDORE (hastily preparing to exit): He will still be here. FUDGE & UMBRIDGE (aside): Fear, never fear, for these senders Still will send dementors near! (Exit all, DUMBLEDORE still avoiding eye contact with HARRY) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From BrwNeil at aol.com Tue Jan 20 01:05:26 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:05:26 EST Subject: Will Harry lose his powers was Re: What's in the locked r... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89172 kathryn-jones at comcast.net writes: > Pippin suggests there may be a choice and > Harry would choose to live without powers > rather than "go on" to the next adventure. > > Ali rightly argues that the Firebolt is a mere > material possession. True. And of course his > friends would not shun him. But would he WANT > this life rather than the next adventure, which > we've already seen evidence that UNLIKE headless > Nick, he's not afraid to take that path? I think Rowling answered this for us in the beginning of OotP when there was the possibility of Harry being expelled and forced to live in the Muggle world. Harry said he could not live in the Muggle world now that he had seen where he truly belonged. I certainly don't want to see Harry, Ron or Hermione die in the series, but I think all three would choose it over being the new Hogwarts squib caretaker. Neil Read and discuss Hogwarts Exposed and its sequel at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsExposed/ Stories also available at http://www.schnoogle.com/ author Neil, http://www.portkey.org/ author Neil, http://www.fanfiction.net/~neil1 author Neil1 and http://www.adultfanfiction.net/ author Neil Chapter thirteen of Hogwarts Too Exposed-A Slytherin Among Us has been posted. Look for chapter fourteen January 26, 2004. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Jan 20 03:39:46 2004 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:39:46 -0600 Subject: Underage magic & the Unforgivable Curses References: Message-ID: <400CA302.8050906@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89173 sophierom wrote: > > My guess would be that only underage wizards' wands are tracked or > registered and that once a wizard gets to be of age, her wand is > taken off some sort of magical list. But it's been a while since > I've read the books, so I could be wrong. If so, why could they not tell that it was Dobby that did magic and not Harry. Dobby did NOT use Harry's wand. I think LOCATIONS have spells on them that act as magical alarms to the MOM. A spell may be on the Dursley's house, detecting magic use within and up to a certain distance from the house. However, being as Dumbledore has a few aurors in his pocket at the MOM, magic done by 'some' people coming and going from the Dursley's is ignored. Jazmyn From erikal at magma.ca Tue Jan 20 05:08:36 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:08:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support Message-ID: <019801c3df13$766355a0$b2a31a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 89174 Meri wrote: I also loved that Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just knew he was going to be a sweet boyfriend! I've seen many R/Hrs mention this passage. But really I don't find it helps the R/H cause much. Here's the quote: "'Thanks for the book, Harry," she said happily.'I've been wanting that New Theory of Numerology for ages! And that perfume's really unusual Ron.' " (444 UK) Okay, clearly the perfume is an indication that Ron's interested in Hermione, but we've known about that since GoF. But what about Hermione's reaction? I'm not a guy, but I can't imagine that if I were to give a girl perfume I'd want her to say it was "unusual". Contrast this to her response to Harry's gift. She's described as receiving Harry's gift "happily" and there's an exclamation point at the end of the sentence. Compared to that, her response to Ron's perfume seems only lukewarm, as if she's just trying to be polite. After all "unusual" isn't what you want perfume to evoke, is it? Her comment doesn't seem to indicate that she's especially pleased with the gift, nor does it seem to be meant to encourage Ron. Another reason I think this quote reflects poorly on the R/H situation is that demonstrates how little Ron understands Hermione. It's true that many girls would be pleased to receive perfume as a present; in fact's it's a typical if not cliche gift for a girl. But Hermione isn't the sort of girl who's likely to care much about perfume. Remember what she tells Harry after the Yule Ball? She mentions how much Sleakeasy she had to use to make her hair straight and says that it's too much trouble to bother with every day. That's the kind of girl Hermione is. She'll dress up on special occasions but, for the most part, isn't overly concerned with looks. In light of this I really doubt perfume is something she's really interested in as a gift. Harry, in contrast, gets her a numerology book which, I assume, is associated with Arithmancy-- Hermione's favourite class. Ron's gift is a cliche; Harry's reflects a knowledge of Hermione's character. Best, Erika (Wolfraven) For friendly shipping discussion join us at The Great Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGreatDebate [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 04:08:28 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:08:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Was:Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" wrote: > And [Harry] is ruthless enough to kill/hurt without batting an eye (or > spending a second thought on it) as was seen in PS with Quirrell and > Voldemort. In PS after he realized he could get rid of Quirrell he > intentionally "caught Quirrell by the arm and hung on as tight as he > could" (PS, UK p.214). He didn't spend a thought on the fact that he > just hurt/probably mortally wounded Quirrell. Yes, it was in self > defence and I don't expect him at that moment to spend much thaught > about that, but at least after he woke up in the infirmary he could > have asked what happened to Quirrell but doesn't even think about it. Annemehr: I think you are reading Harry completely wrong, but this last part must surely be movie contamination. The relevant quote from PS/SS, from which you only took a phrase, tells exactly what Harry was doing: --------------------------------- "Then kill him, fool, and be done!" screeched Voldemort. Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face -- "AAAARGH!" Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering, too, and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain -- his only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him from doing a curse. Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm, and hung on as tight as he could. [...] he could only hear Quirrell's terrible shrieks nd Voldeort's yells of, "KILL HIM! KILL HIM!" [...] ----------------------------------- I don't know how it could be any clearer that Harry is defending his own life by causing Quirrell blistering burns (second degree is the technical term, I believe). There's no need for Harry to think twice about that because it's actually the right thing to do. You don't spend a second thought on giving an attacker a boo-boo on the arm when there's a life at stake, even if it's your own. And Harry never tried to kill Bellatrix; he knows perfectly well what the Cruciatus Curse is for. Sorry if this sounds sarcastic; I'm really just trying to make a very emphatic point. Annemehr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 04:18:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:18:54 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89176 Tail end of a post by Koinonia02 in response to Anne: > Anne > > (Whose tempted to see if she can prove that Sirius will come back > as a vampire....yes folks. I AM crazy.....) > > "K" > Please try. Carol: All the descriptions of Snape as pale and gaunt are echoed by descriptions of Sirius (in his PoA incarnation) with exactly the same traits (even bared and yellowish teeth). Yet much as Harry hates Snape, it's Sirius, not Snape, whom Harry mentally compares with the photos of vampires he's seen in his DADA books. And what about that bottle of something that looks suspiciously like blood that turns up durin the housecleaning at 12 Grimauld Place in OoP. Like most clues in the HP books, it's there for a reason. Carol, who doesn't think that either Snape or Sirius is a vampire, but who thinks that if it must be one or the other, the evidence is stronger for Sirius than for Snape P.S. If there is a vampire in these books, it's most likely to be Krum, who at least hails from the right part of Europe. C. From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Tue Jan 20 04:43:09 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:43:09 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: <019801c3df13$766355a0$b2a31a40@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89177 Meri wrote: I also loved that Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just knew he was going to be a sweet boyfriend! Erika (Wolfraven) wrote: I've seen many R/Hrs mention this passage. But really I don't find it helps the R/H cause much. Here's the quote: "'Thanks for the book, Harry," she said happily.'I've been wanting that New Theory of Numerology for ages! And that perfume's really unusual Ron.' " (444 UK) Okay, clearly the perfume is an indication that Ron's interested in Hermione, but we've known about that since GoF. But what about Hermione's reaction? I'm not a guy, but I can't imagine that if I were to give a girl perfume I'd want her to say it was "unusual". Contrast this to her response to Harry's gift. She's described as receiving Harry's gift "happily" and there's an exclamation point at the end of the sentence. Compared to that, her response to Ron's perfume seems only lukewarm, as if she's just trying to be polite. After all "unusual" isn't what you want perfume to evoke, is it? Her comment doesn't seem to indicate that she's especially pleased with the gift, nor does it seem to be meant to encourage Ron. Another reason I think this quote reflects poorly on the R/H situation is that demonstrates how little Ron understands Hermione. It's true that many girls would be pleased to receive perfume as a present; in fact's it's a typical if not cliche gift for a girl. But Hermione isn't the sort of girl who's likely to care much about perfume. Remember what she tells Harry after the Yule Ball? She mentions how much Sleakeasy she had to use to make her hair straight and says that it's too much trouble to bother with every day. That's the kind of girl Hermione is. She'll dress up on special occasions but, for the most part, isn't overly concerned with looks. In light of this I really doubt perfume is something she's really interested in as a gift. Harry, in contrast, gets her a numerology book which, I assume, is associated with Arithmancy-- Hermione's favourite class. Ron's gift is a cliche; Harry's reflects a knowledge of Hermione's character. Arya now: Erika did an excellent analysis of this and I just felt compelled to offer my opinion about the use of interpretting gifts as indicators of feelings between two people. (It was a rather lengthy all-girls discussion one recent night here) The perfume Hermione gets from Ron strikes very near to my heart because there was one year with a rather newish b-friend (only together 4 months) gave me perfume for Christmas. I was very disappointed in the end. He'd also given me a selection of gourmet coffees but, all in all, all the gifts combined gave me the distinct impression we would not last. Why? Perfume, one I had never mentioned and didn't pparticularly like, but he did, struck me as a selfish gift. It's something you give to a person but chose because you, the giver intend to enjoy it. (He had said he liked it and that's why he bought it.) The coffees, like the perfume, were consumable. They were temporary and not lasting. Truth of the matter was, we broke up about five months later, shortly after the last of the coffees had been used up. Even since then, I never thought that was a coincidence and have always tried to analyse gifts and relationships. Let's look at Harry's gift in this same light. He buys her a book that he knew from likely overhearing Hermione mention she wanted it. This means he had to have listened to her. (Believe me, a rare, rare quality for a male to exhibit.) He had no personal gain in giving her the gift. He's not even in the class with her and about to benefit from her increased knowledge from the book. This shows it to be selfless and the only motivation he has to give her that is to make her happy. A book is everlasting. It does not fade like the bloom of a flower, evaporate like the aromatics of a perfume, or even fray like wool. Sure they pages may tatter and tear but the knowledge they provide is truly eternal. It's a lasting gift. Compared to Ron's gift of an "unusual" perfume which Hermione, I think we can safely say, would rarely wear (she is rather low maintenace). I see Ron as perhaps having a bit of a proximity crush on Hermione. I've seen no evidence it's returned--especially since OotP-- and do not think it would be lasting. Arya~~ (Who is still single and has yet to get a book as a gift from any boy-- or girl--friend. ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 04:46:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:46:45 -0000 Subject: Dursleys and Memory Charms In-Reply-To: <000d01c3dc68$4ff87ba0$25e66151@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Christy wrote: > >It would seem that this applies to any person who is brought into the > >wizard world, so to speak. Hermione's parents must know where their > >daughter is... they've been to Diagon Alley, in fact. And there are > >several parents of students who are either muggle-born or half and > >half. I can't imagine that the MoM goes around and modifies the > >memories of all those people. I find it more likely that perhaps > >people who are against the idea (can you see a family like the > >Dursley's getting a letter from Hogwarts if they didn't have any > >previous connections to it? They'd probably laugh it out of the house) > >or really don't need to know (like extended family: aunts, uncles, > >etc.). Remember Petunia knows all about the WW, because of Lily. > > The one overarching thing which determines the way the WW behaves towards > Muggles, is that the _Muggles_ _mustn't_ _find_ _out_. > > Now there are two types of scenario in which a Muggle _might_ find out about > the WW. The first one is where there's an isolated or a one-off occurrence > (Peter's confrontation with Sirius, or the World Cup, for example). In those > circumstances, all that's got to be done is to round up any Muggle witnesses > and wipe their memories of the specific event - the spell is put on the > Muggle and that's that. All memory of those few minutes is gone and all the > victim gets is a headache if they try to remember. > > But there's another scenario in which a Muggle has a _constant_ reminder of > the WW. A relative at Hogwarts would be an example, or possibly a wizard > family as neighbours. Canon tells us that Hogwarts itself is magically > protected to look like something different if a Muggle chances by, and it's > fair to assume that that sort of "don't notice me" spell is also built into > other WW buildings - the Leaky Cauldron, St Mungo's, and the rest all look > like somewhere that your eyes just slide across. > > I wonder if there's something similar for _people_. A member of the WW (like > a Hogwarts student, but possibly also the MoM officials who are in touch > with the Muggle PM) also has a spell put on them by the Ministry so that the > Muggles around them don't notice the fact that there's anything remarkable > going on. A very easy way to hide someone in plain sight. > > Cheers > > Ffred Carol: IIRC, we're told by several people that Muggles deceive themselves and come up with all sorts of explanations to deny the existence of magic. The first chapter of SS/PS shows this thought process in action as Mr. Dursley tells himself that cats can't read maps or signs and decides that the people in cloaks must be collecting for some cause, and the newscaster and weatherman joke about the owls and fireworks. Sorry I can't remember who made the remark about the self-deception. It might have been Mr. Weasley at the World Quidditch Cup. Carol, who hopes that someone whose memory hasn't been modified will help her out Carol From molly_weasley_wannabe at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 04:55:32 2004 From: molly_weasley_wannabe at yahoo.com (Kathryn Wolber) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:55:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wondering About Weasleys In-Reply-To: <1074559665.11960.29214.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040120045532.40959.qmail@web11601.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89179 wrote: I have two questions about the Weasleys (at least just two right now). First of all, I have seen many people mention the "missing" Weasley son. I tried to find references to this in the FAQs and by searching, but with no luck. Could someone either explain this or point me in the right direction? Also, I am currently re-reading OOtP and noticed the discussion on Chapter 9. Mrs. Weasley's boggart was mentioned, but no one discussed the fact that it took the shape of everyone in her family (and Harry) except Charlie and Ginny. I find it interesting that they were not shown. Is she not as concerned about them, or is there another reason? It makes me more likely to think that they would be the ones injured (or killed) since JKR pointed us in the direction of the others. Any thoughts on this? Kathryn now: I'm also interested in the other theories about the missing Weasley child because in my scenario (which is extensive and wouldn't mind explaining to anyone interested offlist but it's really elaborate so I just won't go there) the missing child was a daughter. As far as the boggart scene, when Harry first hears Molly screaming, he's still on the stairs, so even at a run it would take him up to 15, 20 seconds to get to the drawing room. I guessed that she saw her missing daughter (who I hypothesize was born between Charlie and Percy) who was killed in the first Voldemort war, then Ginny, Hermione, Charlie, and then Harry comes in. Later this week if I get really bored I might type up my entire theory...but it'll be really long and I doubt anyone would read the whole thing...so we'll see. ~Katie, who used to be Kathryn...but since there are two other Kathryn's decided using a nickname would be good:) ===== "Difference of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.-Dumbledore,GoF "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that."-Dumbledore-SS Ron: "Well, I had one that I was playing Quidditch the other night...what d'you reckon that means? Harry:"Probably that you're going to be eaten by a giant marshmallow or something." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From EnsTren at aol.com Tue Jan 20 06:03:26 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:03:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perfume vs. Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89180 A strange thought occured to me. As has been said "unusual" is an odd word to describe perfume, if she was trying to be polite "nice" would have been better. But, rtemember, Mrs. Weasley said she got her husband with a love potion. Ron was presumably brought up with this story. Given this, giving love potions is an acceptable way to get the girl in his upbringing. A love potion as a perfume could certainly count as being "unusual." Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jan 20 06:53:47 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:53:47 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, EnsTren at a... wrote: > A strange thought occured to me. As has been said "unusual" is an odd word > to describe perfume, if she was trying to be polite "nice" would have been > better. snip > Nemi > AmanitaMuscaria now - Agreed - I hadn't gotten to the love potion conclusion, but I rather thought that Hermione had mistaken what Ron's gift actually was. JKR does her usual thing of cutting off the conversation, so we don't know if Ron was going to explain (not a love potion, maybe concentration aid or some other useful potion? ) or not (love potion). All we're told is that Hermione thought it was an unusual perfume. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From punkieshazam at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 07:25:26 2004 From: punkieshazam at yahoo.com (punkieshazam) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:25:26 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith > wrote: > > The post by punkieshazam (88875) pricked my conscience. > > > > Annemehr: > > Yeah, okay, that was funny. > > But I'm going to agree with punkie's assertion that we shouldn't > ordinarily call muggle-borns "mudbloods." It leads to imprecision of > thought. Punkie: If you go to the Quik Quotes section of the Leaky Cauldron and read at length you will find that JKR has spent much of her life working for and with human rights organizations. Thus S.P.E.W. among other things. Mr Arrowsmith's comments are very clever and they miss the mark of what I was trying to say. Let me be *very* explicit. I am an elderly American. I was born in the '30s. (I will be 68 in March). Until approximately 150 years ago, my government condoned slavery. We as a society are still having to deal with the issues that grew out of that travisty. However, we have made a little progress in these matters and not even the worst bigot ordinarily uses the word N****r in polite society anymore. When I read Ron's reaction to Malfoy's use of mudblood in Cos I equated it with N****r. Mudblood is a vile epithet. Describing Harry as a mudblood is a vile social transgression. Sorry if I'm a cranky old woman, but I'm a cranky old woman about epithets. Punkie Petunia is a squib! From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 07:38:51 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:38:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Was:Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89183 > Annemehr: > > I think you are reading Harry completely wrong, but this last part > must surely be movie contamination. The relevant quote from PS/SS, > from which you only took a phrase, tells exactly what Harry was doing: > > --------------------------------- > "Then kill him, fool, and be done!" screeched Voldemort. > > Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by > instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face -- > > "AAAARGH!" > > Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering, too, and then Harry > knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering > terrible pain -- his only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep > him in enough pain to stop him from doing a curse. > > Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm, and hung on as > tight as he could. [...] he could only hear Quirrell's terrible > shrieks nd Voldeort's yells of, "KILL HIM! KILL HIM!" [...] > ----------------------------------- > > I don't know how it could be any clearer that Harry is defending his > own life by causing Quirrell blistering burns (second degree is the > technical term, I believe). There's no need for Harry to think twice > about that because it's actually the right thing to do. You don't > spend a second thought on giving an attacker a boo-boo on the arm when > there's a life at stake, even if it's your own. sachmet96 I know that his life was at stake and I see that he had to defend his life but what I am complaining about is that when in the infirmary and DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? Also DD doesn't say Voldemort killed Quirrell but left him to die. It's not clear why Quirerell is going to die but the probability that's from the wounds Harry dealt him is very high but Harry doesn't even ask if that's the case. So that is also very ruthless. But instead of batting an eye Harry goes on and asks questions about himself (why Snape hated his father, how he was able to get the stone). Actually I think this whole infirmary scene shows much about Harry's character. Also in book 3 he doesn't stop to even think about Snape after they stunned him and then doesn't complain about Sirius banging Snape's head against the ceiling. I think one of Harry's weaknesses is that he is able to show compassion and such but only for people he likes/cares about. People he dislikes do not concern him. The only curious thing is that he didn't dislike Quirrell a whole year long but also doesn't ask if he is alive at the end, of course he saw a different Quirrell but still I think that's a character trait that one should not overlook. > And Harry never tried to kill Bellatrix; he knows perfectly well what > the Cruciatus Curse is for. > > Sorry if this sounds sarcastic; I'm really just trying to make a very > emphatic point. sachmet96 I am also making an emphatic point I just don't agree with you. Maybe I am reading too much in a single scene and I am unable to understand why one wouldn't even ask what happened when one is told that someone one knows in left to die. From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Jan 20 07:45:22 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:45:22 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barbara Dunlap" wrote: > I have two questions about the Weasleys (at least just two right > now). > > First of all, I have seen many people mention the "missing" Weasley > son. I tried to find references to this in the FAQs and by > searching, but with no luck. Could someone either explain this or > point me in the right direction? > > Also, I am currently re-reading OOtP and noticed the discussion on > Chapter 9. Mrs. Weasley's boggart was mentioned, but no one > discussed the fact that it took the shape of everyone in her family > (and Harry) except Charlie and Ginny. I find it interesting that > they were not shown. Is she not as concerned about them, or is there > another reason? It makes me more likely to think that they would be > the ones injured (or killed) since JKR pointed us in the direction of > the others. Any thoughts on this? > I think they likely would have been next. I think this passage is meant more to show Mrs. Weasleys concern about her family, and possibly set us up for *her* to die saving them. After all, mothers seem have a high fatality rate: Lily - sacrificed to save her son Mrs Crouch - dies freeing her son Tom Riddles mother - dies in childbirth Alice Longbottom - tortured to insanity Even Hagrids mother seems to have died years ago. It's easy to be worried for Molly's safety, especially when she hugs Harry "like a mother"... --Arcum From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Tue Jan 20 07:46:57 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:46:57 -0000 Subject: why the order? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89185 hi, Dumbledore starts the order of phoenix the second time in the fifth book. That's I suppose, after Fudge's reaction to the news of Voldemort's arrival. Dumbledore thought that he won't be getting any official support from the ministry and that any resistance has to be underground. But what was the reason for starting it the first time? The ministry then was fully involved in resisting Voldemort so why the need to start a secret group in the first place? spangb From EnsTren at aol.com Tue Jan 20 08:24:04 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:24:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perfume vs. Book Message-ID: <140.20cea981.2d3e3fa4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89186 In a message dated 1/20/2004 1:56:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, saraandra at saraandra.plus.com writes: AmanitaMuscaria now - Agreed - I hadn't gotten to the love potion conclusion, but I rather thought that Hermione had mistaken what Ron's gift actually was. JKR does her usual thing of cutting off the conversation, so we don't know if Ron was going to explain (not a love potion, maybe concentration aid or some other useful potion? ) or not (love potion). All we're told is that Hermione thought it was an unusual perfume. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria That's a very good point actually. I wouldn't make sence to have a funny smelling love potion after all. And if it was another type of potion, concentration, memory, whatever, it might smell funny, or even not be exactly viscous as perfumes are, which would be why she would hesitate to say "nice" and instead settled on "unusual." After all, What would you say if someone gave you a lumpy perfume? Point in fact, considering his financial situation, he might have made the potion himself, further contributing to the odd smell/texture/color. -Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 04:48:31 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:48:31 -0000 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89187 I was rereading some random JK interviews, and in one quote she said that someone very late in life (No specific age given), who has never shown any ability for magic previously, will be able to do magic in very desperate conditions. I'm sure it's been discussed, but anyone have a thought on who this could be? Obviously a few names come to mind: Petunia, Dudley, Filch or Mrs Figg. Or, perhaps someone else not mentioned above, or still unknown? Although, it's getting late enough in the series, it wouldn't be as meaningful if we weren't invested in this character. Petunia would be great, as she's already shown an understanding of the wizarding world, and on some level, showed concern for Harry when she got Dumbledore's howler. And, I still think there's something else problematic regarding the charm Dumbledore placed in the Dursley's home. The word 'pact' was used, which would indicate that perhaps, Petunia, received something in return for taking Harry in the first place? I think Dudley being able to do magic would be hilarious. He'd probably give himself a tail! Filch would be terrible, he'd just find ways to seek revenge on the students if he could finally hex them. From estrom2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 05:11:09 2004 From: estrom2000 at yahoo.com (estrom2000) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:09 -0000 Subject: Daily Prophet's sudden change of heart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89188 I wonder how did Fudge suddenly manage to get total control of Daily Prophet after Voldemort's return? In PoA he seems more concerned that the story of Sirius's and Buckbeak's escapes may reach the DP and it'll have field day at his expense than with what a supposedly ravaging hyppogrif and a supposed extra-devious multi-murderer on the loose might do. In GoF the DP seems eager to publish any sensational, unconfirmed rumor that can cast doubt at the MoM's effectiveness (e.g. dead bodies removed from the forest after the Quidditch Cup). But right after Voldemort's return the DP suddenly becomes a MoM echo, which writes only what Fudge approves of (as Hermione and Rita Skeeter agree (OOTP, ch. 25, p. 567)), and not even Dumbledore's speech at the International Wizengamot about Voldemort's return (even more sensational than the death mark and bodies in the forest and certainly coming from a more reliable source) nor the defection of dementors from Azkaban (a similarly sensational and quite confirmed fact) causes the DP to print a single word of criticism. I wonder how Fudge has suddenly managed to get such a total control over it, and, if it were quite easy to do, why hadn't he done it before? Nellie. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 09:25:20 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:20 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89189 I wrote : > And as far as the Patronuses (Patroni ?) go, I'd like to remind > that Harry didn't manage to produce a good real one until the Lake > Attack. Geoff corrected me by reminding me that Harry produced a real Patronus during the Ravenclaw-Gryffindor Quidditch match and added : > We don't know for certain that it's a stag because Harry is > concentrating on other things but it's big and Lupin thinks its > quite something. And Jen R added : > We find out later in POA that Harry did produce a stag at the > Quidditch match, when Dumbledore tells him, "Last night Sirius told > me all about how they became Animagi....And then I remembered the > most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr. Malfoy > down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw." And I answer : Okay, guys, you got me :-). However ;-), in the context of the original problem, which was whether or not the DA students would be as able as Harry to produce a Patronus in case they truly needed one, I'm afraid Harry's Patronus at the Quidditch match doesn't help us determine that. We've seen that Harry was able to produce his first Patronus when he was concentrating on something else entirely (getting the Snitch), and his second one when he was removed from the action and knew he would manage. In the meantime, he failed to produce one when confronted to a hundred Dementors. Of course we can quite safely assume that their sheer number overwhelmed him, which leaves us wondering whether he would have managed to produce a Patronus if there had been only a couple of Dementors, like he does a year later. So IMO there's no way to know if Harry is truly more talented than the other students just by looking at their ability to produce a Patronus when they don't need one. What do you think ? Del From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 09:53:01 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:53:01 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89190 > However ;-), in the context of the original problem, which was > whether or not the DA students would be as able as Harry to produce a > Patronus in case they truly needed one, I'm afraid Harry's Patronus > at the Quidditch match doesn't help us determine that. We've seen > that Harry was able to produce his first Patronus when he was > concentrating on something else entirely (getting the Snitch), and > his second one when he was removed from the action and knew he would > manage. In the meantime, he failed to produce one when confronted to > a hundred Dementors. Of course we can quite safely assume that their > sheer number overwhelmed him, which leaves us wondering whether he > would have managed to produce a Patronus if there had been only a > couple of Dementors, like he does a year later. So IMO there's no way > to know if Harry is truly more talented than the other students just > by looking at their ability to produce a Patronus when they don't > need one. What do you think ? sachmet96 I agree with you. Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while practicing some of the others on the other hand were able to do just that (Cho if I remember correctly). So they are at least as good/if not better as him imo. And it can't be of Harry's teaching skills either because he had Lupin as teacher and Lupin is competent. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 09:55:38 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:55:38 -0000 Subject: Harry using the Cruciatus Curse (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89191 About Harry using the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix, lizvega2 said : > I think Bellatrix actually covered this one for us. You have to > really MEAN them (Unforgivable Curses) in order for them to work. > No book in front of me for an exact quote, but, she says something > along the line of, "righteous anger won't last for long" Even Harry > noticed that after he cast the spell, she did fall on the ground, > but she didn't scream or writhe in pain. He DIDN'T mean to really > cause her pain, he was angry. Del answers : I don't see why "Harry was angry" and "Harry wanted to cause Bellatrix pain" could not co-exist. Harry was indeed angry, and hurt, but he also very clearly wanted to hurt Bellatrix. He made a very conscious decision to use the Cruciatus Curse even though : a. he had never used it before, it was not a reflex action (it's also the real reason why it didn't work : he didn't know how to make it work) b. he knew it was forbidden c. he knew what it did : he'd experienced it himself, he'd seen it used on other people. I remember being quite disturbed when I read that scene, because it was such a proof that Harry had no control over his emotions. He's angry, he's got a knife, he tries to use it, period. I find it quite scary that the WW would put so much hope in someone who could so easily slip over to the Dark Side. Not to mention that he doesn't hold many regrets for attemping to use an Unforgivable Curse. How can he defeat LV if he uses the same weapons as he does ? Lizvega2 : > He was't trying to kill anyone, he may have said it in the death > chamber, before he ran after Bellatrix, but for those of you > familiar with the old Jack Lemmon movie, 12 Angry Men, saying that > you want to kill someone doesn't mean that you actually want them > dead. Del answers : I'm not familiar with this movie, but I don't completely agree with your conclusion. I would rather say : saying that you want to kill someone doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you actually want them dead. You might want them dead, or you might not. Only you can know. And as far as Harry is concerned, I think it's quite obvious he DOES want Bellatrix dead. Del ps : does anyone else find the parallel between Harry's anger at the MoM and his attempt to hurt Bellatrix, and Anakin's anger after the death of his mother and his murderous revenge, disturbing ? We do know that this mass murder is the single act that definitely precipitated Anakin's fall to the Dark Side after all... From derek at rhinobunny.com Tue Jan 20 10:27:08 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:27:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040120022354.02814bd0@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89192 lizvega2 wrote: >I think Dudley being able to do magic would be hilarious. He'd >probably give himself a tail! Derek: Oooh... I just had a chilling thought. We've wondered what Dudley saw when near the Dementor. What if Dudley already knows or suspects that he can do magic, and what he saw was his parents' reaction to it? What if he saw his pampered life ended and his parents treating him like they treat Harry? - Derek From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 20 05:27:59 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:27:59 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89193 Sachmet: > > > But what it comes down to is that Harry tried to kill someone at the age of 15. I don't think such a thing can be overlooked. Frost: > > > > No, he didn't. He just tried to hurt someone very badly. > > > > Crucio is not the same as a AK. The difficulty is still that > he > > > > tried to use an unforgivable, but was unable to. lizvega2: > > I think Bellatrix actually covered this one for us. You have to > > really MEAN them (Unforgivable Curses) in order for them to work. > No > > book in front of me for an exact quote, but, she says something > > along the line of, "righteous anger won't last for long" Even Harry > > noticed that after he cast the spell, she did fall on the ground, > > but she didn't scream or writhe in pain. He DIDN'T mean to really > > cause her pain, he was angry. He was't trying to kill anyone, he > may > > have said it in the death chamber, before he ran after Bellatrix, > > but for those of you familiar with the old Jack Lemmon movie, 12 > > Angry Men, saying that you want to kill someone doesn't mean that > > you actually want them dead. I have been following this thread and several posts have come up that I have trouble with. First of all, maybe I am naive, but I feel on a very important level that JKR would not revolve an entire series around a character who turns out to be evil. In the U.S. and probably in other countries as well there are laws where retaliation, even if it includes murder, are considered justified. Whether or not this is moral could be debated forever, however, in the case of Harry's attack on Belletrix, his actions may not be the highest moral road but I think most of us have faced a time when our outrage at another persons actions cause us to step over the line. I like the above quote about righteous anger because it puts his feelings in perspective, he could NOT perform a successful Cruciatus curse because the ability to be cruel is not a part of his make-up. There are so many places where he is able to see other's feelings and be compassionate (Snape in the pensieve for one). These are the times when his character comes into focus for me. There are so many references to Harry's arrogance or lack of extrordinary talent on this list that sometimes I feel like I am reading a different series of books or just don't understand them in the same way. Dumbledore says at the end of OotP "...I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined...I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands....Young you might be, but you had proved yourself exceptional." (American Ed. pg. 839) Regardless of whether or not you trust DD, he seems to know a talented wizard when he sees one (Tom Riddle) and he believes Harry is exceptional. That is how I chose to see him as well. We rarely see what other students do. Only a few glimpses or HRH and sometimes Neville and usually when they are making a mistake. I am looking forward to seeing how the OWL's turn out so that we get a more objective view of their abilities. I believe Harry will prove himself exceptional, and in the end be able to do whatever he pleases. Sue (who really LIKES Harry and wishes him well) From mangochee at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 07:36:58 2004 From: mangochee at yahoo.com (mangochee) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:36:58 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89194 Arya: Compared to Ron's gift of an "unusual" perfume which Hermione, I think we can safely say, would rarely wear (she is rather low maintenace). I see Ron as perhaps having a bit of a proximity crush on Hermione. I've seen no evidence it's returned--especially since OotP-- and do not think it would be lasting. me (mangochee): Hi everyone, this is my first post here, although I've been monitoring the list for quite a long time. So here goes... Ginny might have had something to do with Ron giving Hermione a perfume for Christmas. She has been watching Ron's attitude when it comes to Hermione since she herself is dating keenly in OOtP, she could've given Ron some "unwanted" gift suggestions. Because, if you look at Ron's response ('no problem' or something like that) to Hermione's plain 'thank you...the perfume was unusual', it seems equally impassive. What I am trying to say here is that the perfume might not have been a sentimental present to begin with. I found something else during my second read of OOtP. I don't have my book here so I can't give the page number, but it happened the evening of Harry's pathetic Valentine's Day's date with Cho (the Hogsmeade one). Hermione is trying to explain to Harry what he did wrong to upset Cho. Harry, off course, can't get what she's saying and Hermione says, "Harry you're worse than Ron...well, no, you're not," she sighed..." I think that sentence and the sigh reveal her frustration about Ron. Hermione realizes that Harry (however unsuccessfully) is at least trying to figure out his feelings and girls. He asked Cho out. Ron, on the other hand, doesn't even realize what's going on, doesn't know what to do about Hermione. I know the H/Hr shippers are going to frown at this?but I just can't see H/Hr. They have an awesome relationship...I don't know about romance! JMHO :)! From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 10:59:08 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:59:08 -0000 Subject: Percy (was : Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89195 "vmonte" wrote: > What I do think is that Percy just doesn't have a sense of humor > about himself. Del answers : Some people don't, and they sometimes have a very good reason for that : insecurity. And there's no ruling against Percy being insecure. Moreover, not having any sense of humour has never been declared a crime, and people shouldn't be persecuted for that. I know some wonderful people who have no sense of humour. They'll get hurt and mad at you if you try and force them to understand and practice humour, but they'll be wonderful friends if you just take them like they are. Vmonte said : > Brothers and sisters often tease and torment each other when > growing up. > > I am teased and tormented by my brother and sister all the time (I > also tease them) and I enjoy it. Del answers : My sister and I didn't tease each other and here's why : we grew up in France, where teasing in a national sport. We went to school, where teasing was the main way of communication between students. It might have sounded innocent, but it actually did a lot of damage to our self-esteem. When people keep mocking you, you begin to wonder if they don't truly mean what they say. You have to be absolutely sure of their love for you, and that they really don't mean it, to come out of it without any doubt about yourself. And teenagers rarely have that kind of certainties. When I read about how the twins treat their siblings, I have bad, painful memories coming up. Memories of people who pretended to love me, but who kept saying hurtful things to me, or who kept undermining everything I did (like the twins undermined Percy's and Ron's jobs as Prefects). Vmonte said : > Sometimes you need family to bring you back into reality and let > you know when you start taking yourself too seriously. Del answers : But I don't see that Percy is taking himself really too seriously. He's rightfully proud of his accomplishments. He's shouldering his responsibilities squarely whenever he has to, and expects respect for that. He's doing well at work, and rightfully expects to be complimented for that. That's what family is for, isn't it ? When a member of my family does something great, I compliment them, it seems natural to me. The only problem with Percy is that he never seems to have enough compliments or recognition. And that, again, might very well be a sign of insecurity. Del From barbara.jo at juno.com Tue Jan 20 05:40:24 2004 From: barbara.jo at juno.com (Barbara Dunlap) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:40:24 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Weasleys In-Reply-To: <20040120023851.99742.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89196 > --- Barbara Dunlap wrote: > > Also, I am currently re-reading OOtP and noticed the > > discussion on Chapter 9. Mrs. Weasley's boggart > > was mentioned, but no one discussed the fact that > > it took the shape of everyone in her family > > (and Harry) except Charlie and Ginny. I find it > > interesting that they were not shown. Is she not > > as concerned aboutthem, or is there another > > reason? > > JES: > Probably the boggart turned into Charlie and Ginny > before Harry entered the room. It was apparent by Mrs. > Weasley's state of upset that she had been facing the > boggart for some time before Harry got there. Barbara again: I had thought the same thing. However, maybe what is important is that we and Harry didn't see them. It seems that when something happens that we and Harry don't see it often turns out to be important. Maybe I am just making this more important that it is. Or, maybe there is something there. From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 11:18:04 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:18:04 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89197 Sue wrote: > I have been following this thread and several posts have come up that > I have trouble with. First of all, maybe I am naive, but I feel on a > very important level that JKR would not revolve an entire series > around a character who turns out to be evil. sachmet96 I don't think Harry will turn out evil. I thinkg JRK just tries to show that he is not such a good person after all as he was painted to be. Sue wrote: In the U.S. and > probably in other countries as well there are laws where retaliation, > even if it includes murder, are considered justified. sachmet96 There are such laws but he tried to hurt not in self defence but intentionally, after all he 'followed' Bellatrix. And even it was supported by the law (which I don't think so in this case as he clearly followed) one would expect that he shows at least a little more feeling for trying to hurt someone after he has cooled down and actually think about what he just did (use an Unforgivable). But he doesn't. Sue wrote: Whether or not > this is moral could be debated forever, however, in the case of > Harry's attack on Belletrix, his actions may not be the highest moral > road but I think most of us have faced a time when our outrage at > another persons actions cause us to step over the line. sachmet96 I have been really angry lots of times so angry that I thought I could have killed the person but that never let me to actually attack somone intentionally with the intend of hurting them (let alone kill them). But Harry did just that. Sue wrote: > There are so many references to Harry's arrogance or lack of > extrordinary talent on this list that sometimes I feel like I am > reading a different series of books or just don't understand them in > the same way. Dumbledore says at the end of OotP "...I have watched > you more closely than you can have imagined...I never dreamed that I > would have such a person on my hands....Young you might be, but you > had proved yourself exceptional." (American Ed. pg. 839) sachmet96 I don't have the books right now but that exceptional could be taken in many ways. I think DD refers to his ability to survive most situations. The reason why I don't want to see Harry as a character with only good qualities (and for me is clearly shown in the books that he is far from it) and idolized is that it would take so much away from the books. They would end up to be just another set of books like there are thousends of them where the are no shades of grey. Where all good guys are totally good and all bad guys are totally bad. I do hope in the next books we will learn more not only about Harry's past but also of Voldemort's. As he is evil now but I would like to know what set him on that path. And I can see similarities between him and Harry. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 20 11:30:05 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:30:05 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" wrote: sachmet96: > I agree with you. Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while > practicing some of the others on the other hand were able to do just > that (Cho if I remember correctly). So they are at least as good/if > not better as him imo. And it can't be of Harry's teaching skills > either because he had Lupin as teacher and Lupin is competent. Geoff: Sorry, you're not clear - there's a punctuation mark missing or something... Do you mean that Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while practising? Whereas some of the others did? If you are referring to the lesson with the DA, then we are told that Cho produced a swan and Hermione's Patronus was an otter while Lavender, Neville and Seamus were not doing very well. Harry isn't reported as producing one at the point. (OOTP "The Centaur and the Sneak" pp.534-5 UK edition) On the other hand, Harry produced his stag perfectly on the request of Professor Tofty while taking hos OWL exam. (OOTP "OWLs" p.630 UK edition) From sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 11:40:11 2004 From: sachmet96 at yahoo.co.uk (sachmet96) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:40:11 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" > wrote: > > sachmet96: > > I agree with you. Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while > > practicing some of the others on the other hand were able to do > just > > that (Cho if I remember correctly). So they are at least as good/if > > not better as him imo. And it can't be of Harry's teaching skills > > either because he had Lupin as teacher and Lupin is competent. > > Geoff: > Sorry, you're not clear - there's a punctuation mark missing or > something... sachmet96 Sorry not good with English language punctiations. The sentence should have read: Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while practicing, some of the others on the other hand were able to do just that (Cho if I remember correctly). I was refering to Harry's own lessons with Lupin in POA where he didn't produce a patronus correctly. The others were able to produce one in their lessons in DA. At that time (OOtP) Harry was able to produce a patronus but not for his own lessons in POA. Hope that clears that up. From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 11:42:59 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:42:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040120114259.21743.qmail@web11303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89200 --- suehpfan wrote: > There are so many references to Harry's arrogance or > lack of > extrordinary talent on this list that sometimes I > feel like I am > reading a different series of books Agreed! As for his exceptional DADA talent, even Hermione in OOP agrees that he is the best in the class year in the subject, better even than her. His performance at the DADA OWLs is clearly presented as exceptional and impresses an extremely experienced examiner. We also know Lupin gave him the highest DADA marks in class (higher than Hermione), and that DD considers the talent and courage Harry displayed to be exceptional. McGonangal believes he can be an auror and that DADA is the one subject he does not need to bring up his marks in. I think Harry's exceptional DADA abilities are pretty much as much established in the canon as anything is. (Both our "info from JKR conduits", Hermione and DD comment on it, just to make sure we get it!) I will not comment further on his morality but also do not understand at all how attempting to hurt (not kill!) someone who is laughing at having killed your loved one can possibly be a serious moral flaw (if it is, certainly almost everyone share it). Thanks Sue! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Tue Jan 20 12:26:21 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:26:21 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" wrote, quoting Geoff: > Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while > practicing, some of the others on the other hand were able to do > just that (Cho if I remember correctly). And then sachmet96 replied: > I was refering to Harry's own lessons with Lupin in POA where he > didn't produce a patronus correctly. The others were able to produce > one in their lessons in DA. At that time (OOtP) Harry was able to > produce a patronus but not for his own lessons in POA. > Hope that clears that up. Iris now: And of course, it was very difficult, because he was only 13, because he had many preoccupations at the time (as always...), and because a wizard needs a happy memory to produce a Patronus. Harry's "DA students" in OotP are older than he was when he started the Patronus lessons, and they have probably more happy memories than he will ever have (except Neville, of course). Last detail (correct me if I'm wrong), Harry's friends learnt how to produce a Patronus without facing any Dementor, even a "Boggart Dementor", that made them feel "as if they never would be happy again". Their psychological background when they started the lessons was not the same than Harry's in a similar situation. It was much more pleasant (they were transgressing Umbridge's rules; it was dangerous of course, but also very exciting. Should I dare say: funny? Yes, I dare, because they are teenagers). Learning correctly, easily, depends on emotions. You can't learn easily if you feel bad. It was Harry's case in PoA, so that's why he didn't manage to produce immediately a Patronus. But what I write is probably nothing new, so I apologize if I'm redundant. Amicalement, Iris From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 12:47:46 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:47:46 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: <001a01c3dea9$0d086880$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89202 Debbie, I agree heartily with your whole post. I just have a little something about : > Fred and George are written in OOP in such a way to suggest that > JKR approves of them very much. She seems to have a taste for > slapstick humor, and for those who engage in it, even when it's > hurtful to others. Del : Ha, but is it JKR or *Harry* who likes that kind of humour ? For some reason, the twins always seemed to like Harry, so he never got to experience their humour first-hand. And most people they made fun of, Harry doesn't care much about. In his eyes, it's quite obvious that for example the twins are "right" and Percy is "wrong". But I'm wondering if this is not just a set-up for Harry to learn a big lesson : that he shouldn't judge people before he truly gets to know them, and that apparently nice and cool people are not necessarily "right". He has started to learn that lesson, with young Sirius and James, but I think he still needs a real-life example. Percy and the twins might actually provide it. If Harry obtains an insider view of that particular conflict, he might realise that things are not as he thought they were. Well, that's what I'm hoping for anyway, because otherwise I'll feel that the characters of Percy and the twins are way too flat :-) ! And I'd also like to support another point you made : > While ultimately everyone is responsible for his/her own actions, > our actions can also affect others' actions, intentionally or > unintentionally. Del : OOOOH YES ! My mom and my sister both have quite a temper. I spent years trying to explain to my sister that she's the one responsible for her actions. But I still knew that my mom had a knack for saying/doing exactly what would tick my sister off. And the same went for my sister knowing exactly how to get my mom worked up. So yes we are ultimately responsible for our own actions, but we are also responsible for not provoking others into doing things they would not have done otherwise. Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 20 13:00:29 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:00:29 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "punkieshazam" > > Sorry if I'm a cranky old woman, but I'm a cranky old woman about > epithets. > > Punkie > > Petunia is a squib! Why apologise for your personal beliefs? There's no need for that. This could get into explosive areas and that was never my intention; nobody comes out satisfied when firmly held personal beliefs are transposed into a fictional world with manufactured epithets. (Witness the thread from the summer when the same subject matter upset the list Elves). This post is intended as an exposition of the way I approach this potentially contentious difference of opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree, but that's only fair since I'm good at disagreeing myself. It, and my original post are not intended as a swipe at anyone, apart from a small group mentioned below. The way I see it, JKR needed to highlight tensions and *perceived* differences between opposing groups - a valid plot exposition IMO. In such a situation epithets are inevitable, they become the short- hand identifier of an individuals stance (real world as well as fantasy). But to impose real world ideology onto fictional make-believe can lead to mis-apprehensions. I would point out (as I have before), that the people at the bottom of the heap in the Potterverse are not mudbloods - they are muggles; us in other words. It is muggles that the purebloods want permission to hunt and kill, to torture and who Arthur Weasley patronises. A neat switch from the usual order of fictional precedence that usually places us on top. We the readers have become the victims of prejudice - how nice! So why not complain about the term 'Muggle'? It would be more apposite to do so, don't you think? The series was written about and aimed at a UK centred world. JKR had no idea it would be an international sensation; at best, she expected sales of a few thousand, enough to supplement a teachers salary. In the UK the problems the US suffered with enforcing equality are seen as events from a different era in a different place. Sure, we've had our own problems, but on nothing like the same scale. The vast majority of the members of minority groups here have arrived or been born in the last 50 years. There is no *history* in the way that the US has. And to presume that the tale is intended as, or can be construed as a metaphor for *your* history and should conform to your social mores is, IMHO more the result of your own experiences than in the world reflected in the books. I too am no spring chicken; there're only a few years between us - WW II was still going strong when I was born. I too have seen many changes in the society around me, mostly for the better. I like to think that my prejudices are based on the attitudes people take than on religious or racial differences. But if there is a tribe that I do view with despair, it is that small, self-selected, invariably naive, caring and concerned collective who so desperately need to show their *right-on* credentials that they invent social solecisms to rage against. Hence my post on appropriate terminology. The 'sins' manufactured by such fanatics (you cannot say dog - it's a companion animal!) are a long, long way from mainstream liberalism (where I presume you are positioned) and in my opinion they deserve parody. For a different reason JKR has also invented a verbal sin, a term to describe a specific sub-group. In the WW it is meant to be shocking, but I am not in the WW and never will be; I will never meet a wizard born of muggles to throw it at. So far as I am concerned it is a word that is solely and deliberately invented for a specific effect in a specific fictional place. I have no qualms in using it, and doing so says absolutely nothing about my attitudes or societal stance in real life. It doesn't insult anyone in the real world, only in the Potterverse. To assume otherwise is something I find incomprehensible; it's an exercise in "let's pretend this means something nasty about real people so we can stop them using it." As Ron would say, "Barmy." I'm a libertarian; reasonable freedom of expression is a tenet that is almost sacred. Unsurprisingly I deny others the right to dictate or censor my use of a made-up word describing a fictional concept. Sorry to get so emphatic, but it does make my blood boil. Others may read into the word what they may, but include me out. And honestly, do you really think that anything said on this site will affect or hurt Harry or Hermione in the slightest? Kneasy A muggle at the bottom of the pile From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 20 13:20:55 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:20:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" wrote: sachmet96: > I know that his life was at stake and I see that he had to defend his > life but what I am complaining about is that when in the infirmary > and DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even > ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? > Also DD doesn't say Voldemort killed Quirrell but left him to die. > It's not clear why Quirerell is going to die but the probability > that's from the wounds Harry dealt him is very high but Harry doesn't > even ask if that's the case. So that is also very ruthless. > But instead of batting an eye Harry goes on and asks questions about > himself (why Snape hated his father, how he was able to get the > stone). Actually I think this whole infirmary scene shows much about > Harry's character. > Also in book 3 he doesn't stop to even think about Snape after they > stunned him and then doesn't complain about Sirius banging Snape's > head against the ceiling. > I think one of Harry's weaknesses is that he is able to show > compassion and such but only for people he likes/cares about. People > he dislikes do not concern him. The only curious thing is that he > didn't dislike Quirrell a whole year long but also doesn't ask if he > is alive at the end, of course he saw a different Quirrell but still > I think that's a character trait that one should not overlook. Geoff: I'm sorry to disagree but I think that you are being unfair to Harry in describing him as ruthless. I would like to look in particular at the scenes in the hospital wing and the Shrieking Shack to which you have made reference. All quotes I am using in this part of my comments are from Philosopher's Stone "The Man with Two Faces" pp.213-5 UK edition. Harry has just been attacked by Quirrell who finds that his hands are blistering . "'Then kill him, fool, and be done!' screeched Voldemort. Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face. ? `AAAARGH!' Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering too and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain ? his only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him doing a curse. Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm and hung on as tight as he could. Quirrell screamed and tried to throw Harry off ? the pain in Harry's head was building ? he couldn't see ? he could only hear Quirrell's terrible shrieks an Voldemort's yells of `KILL HIM! KILL HIM!' and other voices, maybe in Harry's own head, crying `Harry! Harry!' He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost and fell into blackness, down down down " Here we have a potentially fatal attack on Harry. Voldemort isn't playing around. He wants Harry dead. Harry's reaction is a reflex ? to grab Quirrell, to stop (presumably) an Avada Kedavra. He then hangs on for dear life. Obviously, Voldemort's proximity is affecting his scar, he is disorientated, in pain and fighting for his own life. He wakes up. He is again disorientated and has to work out where he is . "Something gold was glinting just above him. The Snitch! He tried to catch it but his arms were too heavy. He blinked. It wasn't the Snitch at all. It was a pair of glasses. How strange." "Harry swallowed and looked around him. He realised he must be in the hospital wing. He was lying in a bed with white linen sheets " "'How long have I been in here?' `Three days. Mr. Ronald Weasley and Miss Granger will be most relieved that you have come round, they have been extremely worried.'" So, he came out of the fight in poor shape. He has taken three days to come round. He needs to catch up on himself and find out what was going on. "'I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you ?` `It was you.' `I feared I might be too late.' `You nearly were. I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much longer ? ` `Not the Stone, boy, you ? the effort involved very nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had. As for the Stone, it has been destroyed.'" Right. Harry's life was in extreme danger. As an aside, Dumbledore's comment is interesting that Harry's own effort nearly killed him ? I wonder why? He has been hauled back to safety. At this point, there is no reference to what has happened to Quirrell and before it might have occurred to Harry to ask after Quirrell, Dumbledore takes his thoughts off in another direction by referring to the Stone's destruction. Harry immediately shows concern about Flamel. Someone he does not know but who is now under threat. After Dumbledore's comments, Harry's thoughts move on to Voldemort and the threat he poses. "'Yes, sir. Well, Voldemort's going to try other ways of coming back, isn't he? I mean, he hasn't gone, has he?' `No, Harry, he has not. He is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share not being truly alive, he cannot be killed. He left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies '" At this point, Harry does not ask after Quirrell. Why not? Because of the way in which Dumbledore comments on Quirrell. The use of the past tense without any qualifier. There is no comment added such as "but the ambulance got to him and found him still alive." "but despite that, we managed to save him." Just "He left Quirrell to die." The finality of Dumbledore's comment would make me, as a listener realise that Quirrell was already dead. So too, I suspect, does Harry for whom Quirrell is a member of the Hogwarts hierarchy, another teacher with whom Harry had little relationship outside the classroom. It is to me as if I was told that a member of the Town Council had died in an accident. Sad, but not touching me at a personal level. So, was Harry being ruthless in this situation? No way. He had been viciously and murderously attacked, had fought off Quirrell until rescued. We do not know quite why he died; perhaps Voldemort's possession had weakened him to the point that a withdrawal was fatal. But we are told that /Voldemort/ left him to die. How about the scene in the Shrieking Shack? Snape appears and ties up Lupin and there is a confrontation with Sirius. Quotes from POA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" pp.264-65 UK edition. "'Vengeance is very sweet,' Snape breathed at Black. `How I hoped I would be the one to catch you ' `The joke's on you again, Severus,' snarled Black. `As long as this boy brings his rat up to the castle ?` he jerked his head at Ron, `- I'll come quietly.' `Up to the castle?' said Snape silkily. `I don't think we need to go that far. All I have to do is call the Dementors once we get out of the Willow. They'll be very pleased to see you, Black . Pleased enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay .' What little colour there was in Black's face left it. `You ? you've got to hear me out,' he croaked. `The rat ? look at the rat-` But there was a mad glint in Snape's eye that Harry had never seen before. He seemed beyond reason." So now who's being ruthless? Harry instinctively blocks the door ? he obviously realises the enormity of Snape's actions in ignoring the possibility of Black telling the truth and the personal disaster it could provoke for Sirius. "'Get out of the way, Potter, you're in enough trouble already,' snarled Snape. `If I hadn't been here to save your skin ?` `Professor Lupin could have killed me about a hundred times this year,' Harry said. `I've been alone with him loads of times, having defence lessons against the Dementors. If he was helping Black, why didn't he just finish me off then?' `Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works,' hissed Snape. `Get out of the way, Potter.'" Harry gets angry and Snape "looking madder than ever" and threatens to make Harry get out of the way. Harry uses an Expelliarmus spell to disarm Snape at the same moment as Ron and Hermione. He is obviously concerned that Snape's hatred is leading him to fly in the face of comments about the miscarriage of justice which has happened. It is interesting to see his reaction after Snape is knocked out "Harry avoided Black's eyes. He wasn't sure, even now, that he'd done the right thing." Although, he still has not been convinced the evidence of Sirius' innocence which has yet to come, he is sufficiently concerned by Snape's alarming behaviour to feel the need to intervene. His behaviour here is the opposite of ruthless. He takes time to try to convince Snape to listen to reason ? although his distrust and annoyance with him is showing - but only takes action when Snape makes it obvious he is prepared to attack Harry in order to exact his revenge on Sirius Black. Bearing in mind his age, he has handled this well; his misgivings afterwards show us that his conscience is switched on. OK, so he doesn't apparently concern himself with Snape but the action and conversation are being driven by the revelations about Peter coming from Sirius and Remus. Harry has not necessarily done the right things here is these two scenes, but the evidence is certainly weighted against him being ruthless. Let us examine ourselves. How often do I meet someone who has, maybe, been ill and I realise afterwards that I didn't ask about their health because we were involved in talk about other things? Or forget to phone someone to check on them .. If I don't always remember at my age, why should I blame Harry who, like any teenager, is still learning social skills and also has all the extra stress of his position to cope with? Geoff From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 13:26:06 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:26:06 -0000 Subject: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sachmet96" > > sachmet96 > I know that his life was at stake and I see that he had to defend his > life but what I am complaining about is that when in the infirmary > and DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even > ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? > Also DD doesn't say Voldemort killed Quirrell but left him to die. > It's not clear why Quirerell is going to die but the probability > that's from the wounds Harry dealt him is very high but Harry doesn't > even ask if that's the case. So that is also very ruthless. It's quite clear in the text that being possessed by Voldemort is lethal in itself, and that Quirrell dies in consequence of that possession. To me, when DD says "left to die", it means that Quirrell is now (at the time of the conversation, which is three days after the fight) already dead. > Also in book 3 he doesn't stop to even think about Snape after they > stunned him and then doesn't complain about Sirius banging Snape's > head against the ceiling. > I think one of Harry's weaknesses is that he is able to show > compassion and such but only for people he likes/cares about. >People > he dislikes do not concern him. The thing is, that the people that Harry dislikes, tend to be the people that Harry hates. And the people that Harry hates, tend to be EVIL. Who are on Harry's dislike list? 1) Voldemort, who killed both his parents and is the WW personification of evil. 2) Umbridge, who sent dementors after him and is generally almost as deeply evil as V. 3) Pettigrew, who betrayed Harry's parents and caused an innocent man to rot in Azkaban for over 12 years. 4) Snape, who consistently and completely unfairly treats Harry like crap. 5) Draco and his family, who are evil bigots, allied to Voldemort. 6) The Dursleys, who have also treated him always like crap. In short, Harry tends to dislike with very good reason. All these people (other then Snape, maybe) do not *deserve* compassion. And when I say that they don't deserve compassion, I mean that *JKR* doesn't see them as deserving compassion. So, it's hardly fair to blame Harry for this, is it? On the other hand, Harry is remarkably nice and compassionate to everybody else, not only to his particular friends: He protects Neville in PS (and he barely knows him at that point); he risks his life for Ginny in CoS; he is also described in CoS, by Hannah Abbot I believe, as being always so nice - and Hannah is a Hufflepuff; he is quick to feel attached and loyal both to Lupin and Sirius in PoA; he risks his own win in the tournament by "saving" Gabrielle (and Fleur is certainly not a friend of his at that point) in GoF. My point here is that a person should be judged, not on whether he is compassionate to his enemies (at least, not only by that), but on who and how many his enemies are, and how justified his enmity towards them is. And, in itself and as a corollary - who and how many are included in his/her "compassion net"? I.e., is a person kind only to a few select friends? Are friends of friends included? Acquiantances? Harmless strangers? It's odd, but Harry seems to treat practically everybody with compassion, *except* those who richly do not deserve it. In my book , Harry is exceptionally kind, compassionate and brave. And, he saved Dudley. Naama Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 13:30:59 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:30:59 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus: Was (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "iris_ft" wrote: > >Last detail > (correct me if I'm wrong), Harry's friends learnt how to produce a > Patronus without facing any Dementor, even a "Boggart Dementor", > that made them feel "as if they never would be happy again". Their > psychological background when they started the lessons was not the > same than Harry's in a similar situation. It was much more pleasant > (they were transgressing Umbridge's rules; it was dangerous of > course, but also very exciting. Should I dare say: funny? Yes, I > dare, because they are teenagers). I think that's the important point. When Harry wasn't suffering under the draining presence of a dementor (and his reaction to a dementor is much worse than anybody else's), he produced an extremely powerful patronus (in the Quidditch game). Naama From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 20 13:09:38 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:09:38 -0000 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89207 I was wondering that myself. I think Petunia would actually be quite comical as a late blooming witch. I think that if Vernon doesn't divorce her, it would be hilarious to see how they treat her "abnormality and freakishness" as she claims witches and wizards to be. I imagine Vernon's grudge against Harry will grow even moreso, considering he might take it as Petunia had been infected or tainted by Harry's "lot". I do hope that it will be Petunia, but if it's not her, then at least I hope it won't be Filch, because I agree, he will be horrible with the children. Sawsan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 14:22:03 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:22:03 -0000 Subject: Daily Prophet's sudden change of heart + Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89208 Nellie wrote : > I wonder how did Fudge suddenly manage to get total control of > Daily Prophet after Voldemort's return? (snip) > I wonder how Fudge has suddenly managed to get such a total control > over it, and, if it were quite easy to do, why hadn't he done it > before? Del adds : And how did the MoM get such a total control over Hogwarts as well ? There used to be a Council of Governors or something like that, in control of Hogwarts. What happened to them ? Why do they let the MoM take over Hogwarts ? One answer could be that Lucius Malfoy is forcing them to, but he already blackmailed them in CoS, so I don't think they would let him do it again so soon. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 14:31:22 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:31:22 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89209 "naamagatus" : > I think that's the important point. When Harry wasn't suffering > under the draining presence of a dementor (and his reaction to a > dementor is much worse than anybody else's), Del answers : We don't know that. We know it's very bad for him, but we can't know if it's worse for him than for other people. Dudley is completely shocked after he meets the Dementors, and Dudley didn't exactly have a horrible life. Dementors produce bad emotions, and emotions can't be measured. We can't say that Harry suffers more from the Dementors than anybody else. Naama : > he produced an extremely powerful patronus (in the Quidditch game). Del : That was my point. Harry can produce a good Patronus when not stressed, but so can a few other students. So Harry's ability to produce a Patronus cannot be counted as a proof of his supermagical abilities. And yes I know he managed earlier, but he also had more training, and private training too, from a teacher. I'm sure quite a few other kids could have done it too. Del From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 14:37:43 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:37:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Was:Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89210 > sachmet96 > I know that his life was at stake and I see that he had to defend his > life but what I am complaining about is that when in the infirmary > and DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even > ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? > Julie: In SS, Harry is an 11 year old boy. What is characteristic of preadolescents? Egocentricity. I think the issues yor raise are more characteristic of his age, not his character. From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 15:04:49 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:04:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Was:Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89211 Geoff and Naama have already written great responses to sachmet96's last post , so I'll just make a short point. > sachmet96 > I know that his life was at stake and I see that he had to defend his > life but what I am complaining about is that when in the infirmary > and DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even > ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? > Also DD doesn't say Voldemort killed Quirrell but left him to die. Annemehr: Harry understood Dumbledore to say that Quirrell was dead. In OoP there's a line where Harry and companions are reviewing what had happened to their past DADA teachers. I hunted for it for a while but couldn't find it, but part of it goes: "one dead, one sacked..." and I forget exactly what else. Can anyone locate that? Anyway, Harry is in the hospital wing, and Quirrell is not. So either Quirrell is indeed dead, or he's in better shape than Harry is. Quirrell wasn't at the end-of-term feast, either, so of course Harry is sure that he's dead. Sachmet96: > It's not clear why Quirerell is going to die but the probability > that's from the wounds Harry dealt him is very high but Harry doesn't > even ask if that's the case. So that is also very ruthless. Annemehr: The probability that Quirrell may have died from blistering burns is slim and none, *especially* at Hogwarts with Madam Pomfrey around. Quirrell was only injured in the skin of his hands (self-inflicted, BTW), his face (after which Harry first realises what's happening), and on one arm. Either Quirrell died from Voldemort possessing and leaving him (and Naama points out that being possessed by LV is fatal; hence the need for unicorn blood), or Constance Vigilance is right, and Dumbledore carefully gave Harry the impression that Quirrell is dead while secretly sending him on a mission instead. Sachmet96: > But instead of batting an eye Harry goes on and asks questions about > himself (why Snape hated his father, how he was able to get the > stone). Actually I think this whole infirmary scene shows much about > Harry's character. Annemehr: There was nothing left to ask about Quirrell after what Dumbledore said, so he asked the (very important) questions he did have. When you find out that someone who has just tried to kill you has died in the attempt, what else it there to say? If Harry were ever to reflect on the life and fate of Quirrell, this wouldn't be the time; here he's just trying to find out what exactly had happened and why. And we can't take JKR's silence on that point to prove he never did think of Quirrell again, because she obviously can't report his every thought, even the ones that might be pertinent to the story. > > sachmet96 > I am also making an emphatic point I just don't agree with you. Maybe > I am reading too much in a single scene and I am unable to understand > why one wouldn't even ask what happened when one is told that someone > one knows in left to die. Annemehr: It's fine if we never agree, but I can't read a post I disagree with so strongly without charging in with my 2 knuts! ;-) Look how our interpretations of this one point color our entire perceptions of the whole series -- so obviously it's quite an important one. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 15:06:09 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:06:09 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89212 Sue wrote: > I have been following this thread and several posts have come up > that I have trouble with. First of all, maybe I am naive, but I > feel on a very important level that JKR would not revolve an > entire series around a character who turns out to be evil. Del answers : And why not ? I'm an amateur writer, and that's actually one thing I'd love to do someday. The only problem is that I don't think I have enough talent to make it work : make people like my character and still have him turn bad without cheating. But JKR has enough talent to manage that. But actually I don't think Harry will turn evil. I believe he's on the verge of it, and will have to make a conscious decision not to let himself go. In my idea, that would make a true hero : do what is right, not what is easy. Sue said : > In the U.S. and probably in other countries as well there are laws > where retaliation, even if it includes murder, are considered > justified. Del answers : *retaliation*, or just self-defence ? To retaliate in my idea is to consciously make plans to hurt someone else because they hurt you. It supposes a malicious intent and a cold decision. You hit me, I mull things over, decide to hit you with a bigger hammer, and go after you to hit you, and oops you die : unless I said I lost my mind, people will hardly justify me in this. To act in self-defence is different : you hit me, I hit you with whatever means I have available right now, and oops I kill you. This was self-defence, and can be justified. Harry was somewhere in-between those 2 positions regarding Bella. I guess that's why we can't get a decision on whether he was justified or not. Sue said : > Whether or not this is moral could be debated forever, however, in > the case of Harry's attack on Belletrix, his actions may not be the > highest moral road but I think most of us have faced a time when > our outrage at another persons actions cause us to step over the > line. Del answers : Yes, but that doesn't mean it's right. Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that he used an Unforgivable Curse. If you pick up a gun and shoot at someone, you can't pretend you didn't intend to kill them. You had a murderous intent. Harry, similarly, had a criminal intent : to make someone magically suffer. He might have been justified, but he still had a criminal intent. And I wonder what to think of a World Saviour and Redeemer who has criminal intents ? Sue said : > I like the above quote about righteous anger because it puts his > feelings in perspective, he could NOT perform a successful > Cruciatus curse because the ability to be cruel is not a part of > his make-up. Del answers : Not exactly. He failed to perform the Curse because a) he didn't know how to cast it properly, and b) his anger was of the righteous kind and thus wouldn't last long enough. Bellatrix says that Harry would fail because he would need to enjoy making others suffer to perform the Curse, but the truth is : we don't know how Harry would have reacted had he managed to make her suffer. We can't be sure he wouldn't have taken a savage pleasure from it. Sue said : > There are so many places where he is able to see other's feelings > and be compassionate (Snape in the pensieve for one). These are > the times when his character comes into focus for me. Del answers : Er, well, actually, those are precisely the times when I go screaming "FINALLY !" Finally he shows a little compassion. Finally he understands the other's point of view. Finally he realises that he can be wrong and others can be right. Finally he stops being self- centered. Sue said : > There are so many references to Harry's arrogance or lack of > extrordinary talent on this list that sometimes I feel like I am > reading a different series of books or just don't understand them > in the same way. Del smiles : Lol ! Actually, it's when I read references to Harry being compassionate or exceptionally talented that I begin to wonder whether we all read the same books :-) Sue said : > Dumbledore says at the end of OotP "...I have watched you more > closely than you can have imagined...I never dreamed that I would > have such a person on my hands....Young you might be, but you > had proved yourself exceptional." (American Ed. pg. 839) Regardless > of whether or not you trust DD, he seems to know a talented wizard > when he sees one (Tom Riddle) and he believes Harry is > exceptional. Del answers : 1. I'm among those who have stopped trusting DD. 2. He said that at a time when Harry desperately needed to be propped up. I had too many people tell me that kind of things when I was feeling bad to know that they sometimes greatly augmented the truth. 3. DD saying that Harry is exceptional doesn't mean he's the only one. DD might say the same thing about Hermione, Ron, Neville or Luna. Just because we don't hear him say it doesn't mean he doesn't do so in private interviews with them. For all we know, he might have had private interviews with all of them following the MoM disaster, and propped each and every one of them up in the very same way. Sue said : > That is how I chose to see him as well. We rarely see what other > students do. Only a few glimpses or HRH and sometimes Neville and > usually when they are making a mistake. I am looking forward to > seeing how the OWL's turn out so that we get a more objective view > of their abilities. I believe Harry will prove himself > exceptional, and in the end be able to do whatever he pleases. > > Sue (who really LIKES Harry and wishes him well) Del answers : I believe that if he tries, Harry can turn out very good. Harry or anyone else for that matter. Del, who doesn't like Harry too much (if he were my so-called friend, I'd drop him quickly : no friend of mine will treat me the way he treats Ron and Hermione in OoP, not after everything they did with and for him) From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 20 15:18:58 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:18:58 -0600 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89213 Julie: In SS, Harry is an 11 year old boy. What is characteristic of preadolescents? Egocentricity. I think the issues you raise are more characteristic of his age, not his character. Anne: I would have to agree with Julie here. Harry is, ultimately, a child still. Although he does by age eleven have the mental capacity to understand right from wrong, can use the ability to be aware of more then just himself, he has yet to learn to use either skill with any success. He is, in short, still young enough to let his emotions over-rule both common sense and the ability to think 'outside his bubble'. This leads into an interesting observation on the discussions themselves--the older posters (myself included) tend to give more credence to an 'adult' POV...where as the younger give credence to the 'younger' POV. Granted, this is not a 100% accurate observation--we have those that 'jump camp' to the other side, and I'm sure there's a lot who are undecided, but I think it helps to show the point...and to illuminate Harry's 'problem' a little more. Essentially, the older you are, the more experience you have...and the more experience you have, the more you will question your own motives (or should) in any given situation. Including defending yourself against someone trying to kill you. A child's viewpoint is much simpler--he tried to hurt me...I did my best to hurt him to stop from getting hurt (or killed). There is no moral thinking going on, simply survival. Afterwards, Harry isn't asked to look at it either--is in fact directed away from Dumbledore (likely to keep the kid from beating himself up any more than he already was)--and at that age, he's not likely to pick it apart himself. Maybe when he gets older, learns more, finds a reason to sympathize with the villains as much as the 'good guys'. Then maybe he'll wonder if he did the right thing. And at that point, he may very well be remorseful for what he did to Quirrel...or understand better that the Dursley's treatment of him was out of pure fear and jealousy and learn to forgive them for their own human failings. He might even forgive Snape his unfair treatment and realize that the snarky old shit was really trying to give him life lessons he would need to know in order to survive Voldy (and any evil wizard that came after him in the future). But that takes time...maturity...and a chance and a willingness to look at both sides, and not just the one he happens to be on. Most people can barely manage that, even after decades of living on this planet. Harry is still young and has had all of 5 years to figure it out. Take hormones, fear, unusual circumstances, and yeah, he will have a hell of a time working enough logic cells loose to figure it out. He doesn't' get it right now. Much easier and more practical for an 'us or them' viewpoint. Much as those of us who'd wish he'd look a little beyond that would like to see it happen....it won't happen, simply because...he is young. Harry IS arrogant sometimes. He has very little compassion for the 'bad guys' (and yes, I know, they are very "evil" by our standards...but what made them that way? What was the cause? You don't have to like them, but at least understand them before you write them off as nothing more than another 'boogie man'). He has none for Snape, even though he did see the pensieve scene (he was more worried about how 'evil' his own father was than what happened to Snape--and by the end of the book he blames Snape anyway for a lot of what happened, both in the past, and when Sirius died. He even wants Dumbledore to agree with him). He thinks sometimes of others...but it is not consistent. At least not yet. And the world DOES revolve around him...or so he thinks, at least when he's depressed and feeling picked upon. These are traits that if he doesn't take a good look at could very well lead him down Tom Riddle's path. It doesn't mean it will...just that it MAY. And I think that's the point Rowling may be making, if you want to look for one. Because ultimately, Harry is reacting no differently than the average teen....but will he continue to hold on to the negative as he gets older? Or will he eventually learn that there are some things, even about himself, that he may need to change so that he DOESN'T fall into Tom's trap...or Snape's, for that matter. No human is perfect...and every human has that potential to slide right over the edge of the moral cliff and out of sight. What makes each person different...and 'more' or 'less' acceptable to the rest of us is whether or not they realize they are slipping over the edge...and whether or not they decide to catch themselves once they realize it...or let themselves fall. Harry's biggest fear seems to be becoming like Voldemort--he worries about it constantly. He can even see where he shares many traits with old Voldy...and that's the point. He COULD become Voldemort...because it's all there, as the Sorting Hat said, in his head. Question is...what will he do with it?. Will he jump off the cliff, or not? Let's hope not...and if he happens to slide over, even a little, let's hope that he has hands and rope from his friends to drag him back... Anne From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Jan 20 15:20:46 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (a_silmariel) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:20:46 -0000 Subject: Poll: Which of these presumably dead (or indisposed) characters will turn out... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89214 I checked 'Other' because of Gilderoy Lockhart. IMO he is in too good a place, near the longbottoms, and we already know he has made a career of lying. Silmariel From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 15:23:13 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:23:13 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: <20040120114259.21743.qmail@web11303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89215 Regina Olshan wrote: > As for his exceptional DADA talent, even Hermione in > OOP agrees that he is the best in the class year in > the subject, better even than her. His performance at > the DADA OWLs is clearly presented as exceptional and > impresses an extremely experienced examiner. Del answers : Yes, Harry is good at DADA. He's good because he's got a personal interest in it. Just like many kids are good at music because they love it, and practice outside of school. So that when they get to study music in school, they of course end up being much better than anyone else. No great mystery in this, and no need for an exceptional talent either. Regina said : > We also know Lupin gave him the highest DADA marks in > class (higher than Hermione), and that DD considers > the talent and courage Harry displayed to be > exceptional. McGonangal believes he can be an auror > and that DADA is the one subject he does not need to > bring up his marks in. > > I think Harry's exceptional DADA abilities are pretty > much as much established in the canon as anything is. > (Both our "info from JKR conduits", Hermione and DD > comment on it, just to make sure we get it!) Del answers : Yes, they all comment on it, so that we forget to check how he's doing in the rest of his studies. And the truth is : he's doing like an average student. And McGonagall makes it clear that there are subjects where he needs to work hard to get his marks up, like Potions. Snape being the teacher makes it harder for him to get good grades, of course, but his copying Hermione's homework on quite a few occasions on varied subjects doesn't help either ! Harry reminds me very much of a university friend, who was very good in computers, but couldn't be bothered to study anything else. He wanted to work in computers, so why should he study Maths ? Well, you guess it, he failed miserably and couldn't enter the Computers class he had his eyes on. Even Tonks was like that : she was very good at Disguise or whatever it will called, because she of course had a natural talent for it. But she almost failed because of her weakness in other areas. Regina : > I will not comment further on his morality but also do > not understand at all how attempting to hurt (not > kill!) someone who is laughing at having killed your > loved one can possibly be a serious moral flaw (if it > is, certainly almost everyone share it). Thanks Sue! Del answers : We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted to apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion and no self-restraint. I went through some bad things, and I sure sometimes wish I could make my tormentors go through what I experienced, but I wouldn't actually do it, because I know it's plain WRONG. You don't make the world a better place by doing bad things. And you can't make yourself feel better by hurting others. Harry obviously still hasn't learned that. Del From kking0731 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 14:33:21 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:33:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89216 "lizvega2" wrote: >I was rereading some random JK interviews, and in one quote she said >that someone very late in life (no specific age given), who has >never shown any ability for magic previously, will be able to do >magic in very desperate conditions. > >I'm sure it's been discussed, but anyone have a thought on who this >could be? > >Obviously a few names come to mind: Petunia, Dudley, Filch or Mrs >Figg. >>> I've been waiting for someone to bring up the subject of the Dursleys. Aunt Petunia at the very least has to be a squib that is hiding the fact that she can do a bit of magic, her very, very clean kitchen is mentioned many times and especially when Tonks replies that "it's a bit too clean, d'you know what I mean? Bit unnatural." As far as Dudley I feel he must be a wizard that has been protected from knowing this fact by being pacified dramatically so that he is not upset and does not unintentionally show the signs that come out with rage. Mrs. Figg is a squib and although she told the ministry she saw the dementors she told Harry that Mr.Tibbles alerted her. Muggles on the other hand get a feeling of despair but can't see them. Dudley felt and described through Harry the dementors. This is actually what I think DD and Petunia are keeping secret about their pact. Petunia would take Harry as long as DD doesn't send a letter of acceptance to Hogwarts for Dudley. "Kathy King" From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Jan 20 15:12:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) References: Message-ID: <00c601c3df67$dadf5200$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89217 I wrote: > > Fred and George are written in OOP in such a way to suggest that > > JKR approves of them very much. She seems to have a taste for > > slapstick humor, and for those who engage in it, even when it's > > hurtful to others. > Del replied: > > Ha, but is it JKR or *Harry* who likes that kind of humour ? For some > reason, the twins always seemed to like Harry, so he never got to > experience their humour first-hand. And most people they made fun of, > Harry doesn't care much about. In his eyes, it's quite obvious that > for example the twins are "right" and Percy is "wrong". But I'm > wondering if this is not just a set-up for Harry to learn a big > lesson : that he shouldn't judge people before he truly gets to know > them, and that apparently nice and cool people are not > necessarily "right". I'm hoping this is the case, because otherwise Percy and the twins are just cartoons. I think if you examine the books carefully, there are signs that we as readers should not be too captivated by the twins' obvious charisma, but they are few and far between, especially in OOP. George's comment that they're "well shot of Percy" and the uncharacteristically ugly look that accompanies it may be the only hint in OOP, which otherwise showcases how their lawlessness can be made to work for the side of good. I didn't care much for the Skiving Snackboxes, or the way they used the first-years as test subjects, but even I have to admit that they were put to very good use against Umbridge. Another sign that I noticed yesterday appears in PoA. Everyone except Molly and Percy (Harry included) laughed at the twins' Humongous Bighead joke. But later, when the twins show Harry the Head Boy badge that they had "improved" to read "Bighead Boy" the text states that Harry's laugh was forced. But a phrase like this is easy to miss, especially when OOP states explicitly that Harry liked Percy less than the rest of the Weasleys. We also should ask why the twins treat Percy as they do. They seem to hold back with Ron -- after the second Quidditch game they decided they didn't have the heart to take the Mickey out of him -- but did not hold back with Percy. Why? In the early books, Molly lavished praise on Percy while scolding the twins. Is there something about this dynamic behind the twins' treatment of Percy? Also, recall Molly's obviously untrue comment that 'everyone in the family' had been a prefect. Has she simply written off the twins as hopeless cases? It can't be that she doesn't care about them or she wouldn't have been so distressed when the family returned from the Quidditch World Cup ("What if You-Know-Who had got you, and the last thing I ever said to you was that you didn't get enough O.W.L.s? Oh Fred . . . George . . .") But I don't want to suggest that Fred and George bear all the blame for Percy's estrangement. There's a much more complicated family dynamic at work, and probably everyone has contributed to the current state of affairs. I'll stop rambling now, before I suggest that the Weasley family is really Ever So Evil. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 20 15:51:31 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:51:31 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <400D4E83.20100@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89218 lizvega2 wrote: > I was rereading some random JK interviews, and in one quote she said > that someone very late in life (No specific age given), who has > never shown any ability for magic previously, will be able to do > magic in very desperate conditions. snip > Petunia would be great, snip I still think there's > something else problematic regarding the charm Dumbledore placed in > the Dursley's home. The word 'pact' was used, which would indicate > that perhaps, Petunia, received something in return for taking Harry > in the first place? > Hehehehehe! I like it! Maybe she negotiated a permanently sparkling clean kitchen in return for raising Harry? Tonks thought it was 'unnaturally clean', remember? Whatever the 'pact' was, it can't have included being safe from magic evermore. Poor Petunia! Just think what she might have asked for, and all she could think of was a self-cleaning kitchen. LOL. digger From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 20 16:00:44 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:00:44 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Daily Prophet's sudden change of heart In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <400D50AC.209@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89219 estrom2000 wrote: > But right after Voldemort's return the DP suddenly becomes a MoM > echo, which writes only what Fudge approves of (as Hermione and Rita > Skeeter agree (OOTP, ch. 25, p. 567)), and not even Dumbledore's > speech at the International Wizengamot about Voldemort's return (even > more sensational than the death mark and bodies in the forest and > certainly coming from a more reliable source) nor the defection of > dementors from Azkaban (a similarly sensational and quite confirmed > fact) causes the DP to print a single word of criticism. > I wonder how Fudge has suddenly managed to get such a total control > over it, and, if it were quite easy to do, why hadn't he done it > before? > > Nellie. > I have been wondering who the Editor of the Daily Prophet is, and why we have not met him/her yet. What kind of power does Fudge have over them, that MOM can send copy direct to the DP (ie Percy staight from Dumbledore's office) and expect to have it printed in the next edition? It seems the DP is nothing but a mouthpiece for the MOM. It is a powerful tool for Fudge. Buying the press does not come cheap. Do I detect the hand and gold of Lucius Malfoy in this? hmmmmmmmmmmm...... digger From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 16:01:10 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:01:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's compassion (was Re: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89220 "naamagatus" wrote: > The thing is, that the people that Harry dislikes, tend to be the > people that Harry hates. And the people that Harry hates, tend to > be EVIL. Who are on Harry's dislike list? > 1) Voldemort... 2) Umbridge... 3) Pettigrew... 4) Snape... > 5) Draco and his family... 6) The Dursleys > > In short, Harry tends to dislike with very good reason. All these > people (other then Snape, maybe) do not *deserve* compassion. And > when I say that they don't deserve compassion, I mean that *JKR* > doesn't see them as deserving compassion. So, it's hardly fair to > blame Harry for this, is it? Del answers : Wow, wait a minute ! I think you're going WAY TOO FAR when you say that JKR holds this or that opinion about any character. We just don't know that ! And Harry has never been the translator of JKR's feelings and opinions. Hermione and DD are, and they don't necessarily hold the same feelings regarding all those characters as Harry does. In fact, I think we might be in for a few big surprises, concerning ANY of the characters you've mentioned. We already know that Snape might deserve more compassion than previously thought. Who knows what the last 2 books will reveal about all of them ? Naama wrote : > On the other hand, Harry is remarkably nice and compassionate to > everybody else, not only to his particular friends: > He protects Neville in PS (and he barely knows him at that point); Del answers : He protects Neville because he's a Gryffindor, but mostly because Harry doesn't like whoever is attacking Neville (Draco, Snape) and wants to fight them anyway. Neville is just an excuse. Naama wrote : > he risks his life for Ginny in CoS; Del answers : That's his saving-people thing. And that's also his being in the wrong place at the wrong time thing :-) Naama wrote : > he is quick to feel attached and loyal both to Lupin and > Sirius in PoA; Del answers : He likes Lupin all right, but not in any special way. He doesn't particularly trust him, he doesn't talk to him about anything much. And yes he likes Sirius, after having hated him for a few months ;-), and only because he might take him away from the Dursleys and because he's his only real remaining link with his past and his parents. Naama : > he risks his own win in the tournament by "saving" Gabrielle (and > Fleur is certainly not a friend of his at that point) in GoF. Del answers : Saving Gabrielle was doing his saving-people act again :-) Or at least, let's say that she was a little girl in a dangerous situation, so he acted like *anyone* in their right mind would : he got her out of it. Cedric and Viktor didn't, precisely because they weren't in their right mind : they were competition-driven. Harry wasn't. And by the way, why isn't Fleur a friend ? She hasn't done anything awful to him. But he just doesn't like her. He doesn't like her manners, he doesn't understand her, so he doesn't like her. So much for showing compassion towards a student away from home and landed in a strange environment among complete strangers. Naama wrote : > My point here is that a person should be judged, not on whether he > is compassionate to his enemies (at least, not only by that), but > on who and how many his enemies are, and how justified his enmity > towards them is. And, in itself and as a corollary - who and how > many are included in his/her "compassion net"? I.e., is a person > kind only to a few select friends? Are friends of friends included? > Acquiantances? Harmless strangers? > > It's odd, but Harry seems to treat practically everybody with > compassion, *except* those who richly do not deserve it. In my book > , Harry is exceptionally kind, compassionate and brave. Del answers : Let me just give you a few names. The Creevey brothers. Ginny Weasley at first. Luna Lovegood. Cedric Diggory. Percy Weasley. Seamus (? That was Seamus, whose mother had a problem with Harry,right ?) in OoP (much compassion Harry showed, not wanting to ease Seamus's dilemma). And best of all : Hermione in PoA, and Ron in GoF. MUCH compassion he showed them ! Del From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 16:05:05 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:05:05 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89221 >Del writes about Harry and the Crutacius Curse : > > We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about > *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. > Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted to > apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion > and no self-restraint. Actucally, he didn't really want to do it: the curse failed because, in Bellatrix's own words, you really have to mean them. Harry was angry, afraid, lost, and torn in half after watching the murder of the closest thing he ever had to a father, and with all that bearing down on him what is remarkable is not that he shouted out an unforgivable, but that he still didn't have enough desire to hurt Bellatrix to make the curse work. This, to me, says more about Harry's character than anything else. Meri (who had to jump in and defend Harry because she loves him and hopes he comes out of book 7 relatively unscathed) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 16:15:37 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:15:37 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89222 Meri wrote about Harry and the Cruciatus Curse : > Actucally, he didn't really want to do it: the curse failed > because, in Bellatrix's own words, you really have to mean them. > Harry was angry, afraid, lost, and torn in half after watching the > murder of the closest thing he ever had to a father, and with all > that bearing down on him what is remarkable is not that he shouted > out an unforgivable, but that he still didn't have enough desire to > hurt Bellatrix to make the curse work. This, to me, says more about > Harry's character than anything else. > Meri (who had to jump in and defend Harry because she loves him and > hopes he comes out of book 7 relatively unscathed) Del answers : Argh, Meri, how shall I put it without hurting you ;-) ? OK, let's agree to disagree then. I'm personally convinced that Harry meant the curse, he meant to hurt Bella, he was even looking forward to it, he was waiting for her to fall and scream in pain. And I think the only reason he failed is that he simply didn't know how to do it. Just like you have to focus on your happy memories to make the Patronus Charm work, you have to focus on your anger and desire to hurt to make the Cruciatus curse work. And Harry doesn't know how to do it. Yet. Del From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 16:21:09 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:21:09 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > "naamagatus" : > > > I think that's the important point. When Harry wasn't suffering > > under the draining presence of a dementor (and his reaction to a > > dementor is much worse than anybody else's), > > Del answers : > > We don't know that. We know it's very bad for him, but we can't know > if it's worse for him than for other people. Dudley is completely > shocked after he meets the Dementors, and Dudley didn't exactly have > a horrible life. Dementors produce bad emotions, and emotions can't > be measured. We can't say that Harry suffers more from the >Dementors than anybody else. By 'anybody', I meant the other characters that we see reacting to the Dementors in the books, not 'the entire Magic and Muggle population'. Among the characters that we do see, Harry is the *only* one who faints when encountering Dementors. It's an unusual enough reaction, that most of his distress afterwards arises from the shame of being *the only one who has fainted.* Then, Lupin specifically acknowledges that Dementors affect him worse than anybody else, because of the horrors in his past. > That was my point. Harry can produce a good Patronus when not > stressed, but so can a few other students. So Harry's ability to > produce a Patronus cannot be counted as a proof of his supermagical > abilities. And yes I know he managed earlier, but he also had more > training, and private training too, from a teacher. I'm sure quite >a few other kids could have done it too. I don't know about "supermagical" abilities, but he did produce a Patronus under a great deal of stress; a Patronus which was strong enough to drive away a hundred Dementors. I would say that JKR intends Harry to be great of heart and character, rather than super magical. He doesn't seem extra brilliant in magic per se (Hermione is much better than he is), but when the magic requires also strength of character, he does seem to be head and shoulders above his peers (and elders): holding on to Quirrell, producing a Patronus, beating Voldemort in the graveyard, freeing himself from Voldemort's possession in OotP. Naama Naama From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 16:21:49 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:21:49 -0000 Subject: Weasley dynamics (was Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: <00c601c3df67$dadf5200$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89224 Debbie wrote : > But I don't want to suggest that Fred and George bear all the blame > for Percy's estrangement. There's a much more complicated family > dynamic at work, and probably everyone has contributed to the > current state of affairs. > > I'll stop rambling now, before I suggest that the Weasley family is > really Ever So Evil. Del answers : I wouldn't say they are ESE either, but I must say I'm concerned about a family where : 1. the oldest son took a job in Egypt 2. the second son took a job in Romania 3. the third son has cut all ties with the rest of the family 4. the fourth and fifth sons haven't even finished school and have probably left the house too. I wouldn't want to point at Molly, and most of all at Arthur, but I'm not sure those two aren't responsible for the estrangement in some way or another of their 5 oldest kids... Del From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 16:43:22 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:43:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: <400D4E83.20100@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20040120164322.74585.qmail@web11306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89225 --- digger wrote: > > that perhaps, Petunia, received something in > return for taking Harry > > in the first place? > > > Re pact, I will reiterate my theory that Petunia's secret (one the exposure of which she fears enough to keep Harry, one which explains her knowledge of the magical world as being much more intimate than can be otherwise explained) is that she was formerly married to a wizard...perhaps one killed by Vmort, perhaps someone we know -- Snape? OK very farfetched but... We know that muggles sometimes unknowingly marry wizards or witches (both Voldemort and Seamus come from unions like this, and Seamus' statement that his dad did not know his mom was a witch until after the wedding is stresse in the movie). We know Petunia was not unattractive (physically) as Harry remarks how much she looked like Lily (except for the eyes). The former marriage connection explains a great deal and (unlike the appealing squib theory) does not take away from the thematic imporance of Lily's (and thus Harry's) muggle ancestry. It also provides for a continuing secret the revelation of which would really turn her world upside down... ROLSHAN __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 20 16:54:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:54:23 -0000 Subject: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89226 Sachmet: > > Also in book 3 he doesn't stop to even think about Snape after they stunned him and then doesn't complain about Sirius banging Snape's head against the ceiling. << Naama: >> In short, Harry tends to dislike with very good reason. All these people (other then Snape, maybe) do not *deserve* compassion. And when I say that they don't deserve compassion, I mean that *JKR* doesn't see them as deserving compassion. So, it's hardly fair to blame Harry for this, is it?<< Lupin and Sirius aren't setting a good example, are they? I'm not sure this means that JKR thinks that compassion should be given only to those who deserve it. I think she wants to show that caring for others is something even good people have trouble with for various reasons, one of which is that we all start out as self-centered infants. We should grow out of it, but not everyone does. One of JKR's recurring metaphors is Evil as infancy. Voldemort, Bella, Pettigrew and the DE who gets stuck in the timeloop are all explicitly babylike. One way to become evil, JKR seems to be saying, is to never grow up enough to care about anybody but yourself. Harry at eleven doesn't have any sympathy to spare for Quirrell. He is barely able to comprehend that Snape, who hates him, nonetheless cared enough about him to save his life. But on the verge of sixteen he's discovered that like it or not, he knows exactly how Snape feels. He's also discovered that he can feel sorry for Luna even though she annoys him dreadfully, and that, strangely enough, sympathy for her makes his own grief easier to bear. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jan 20 17:07:29 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:07:29 -0000 Subject: Bad twins? (was Ron is like Percy) In-Reply-To: <00c601c3df67$dadf5200$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89227 Debbie: > > > > Fred and George are written in OOP in such a way to suggest that > > > JKR approves of them very much. She seems to have a taste for > > > slapstick humor, and for those who engage in it, even when it's > > > hurtful to others. > > > Del replied: > > > > Ha, but is it JKR or *Harry* who likes that kind of humour ? Debbie again: > > I'm hoping this is the case, because otherwise Percy and the twins are just cartoons. > > I think if you examine the books carefully, there are signs that we as readers should not be too captivated by the twins' obvious charisma, but they are few and far between, especially in OOP. George's comment that they're "well shot of Percy" and the uncharacteristically ugly look that accompanies it may be the only hint in OOP, which otherwise showcases how their lawlessness can be made to work for the side of good. I didn't care much for the Skiving Snackboxes, or the way they used the first-years as test subjects, but even I have to admit that they were put to very good use against Umbridge. David: I think there are other signs in OOP. First, IIRC, it's explicit that Ron's Quidditch performance improves, not when they lay off him, but when they leave. That implies to me they are to be considered a malign influence on him. Second, after the Pensieve revelation of James, Harry thinks of Fred and George and makes a comparison. He goes on to deny that F&G are as bad as James, but he does make the connection. Of itself that might not mean much, but to me it's important because I see bullying as an implicit series theme that has become explicit in GOF. James' behaviour is one of the central revelations of the book, and I see it foreshadowed and echoed in a number of ways: Harry's behaviour towards Dudley, Snape's towards Harry, Sirius' towards Kreacher, Umbridge and Fudge towards Mrs Figg, and so on including L Malfoy, Bellatrix, Filch, Dumbledore, etc. Harry's linking of the twins to James, however briefly, says to me that JKR is aware that they are exemplars on a range of behaviour from joking or self-defensive through insensitive to downright nasty. Even if she ultimately comes down on their side, she's asking her readers what they think: what is the effect of behaviour such as the twins'? By suggesting a line between James and the twins, I think she admits the twins are near that line. David From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 17:13:01 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:13:01 -0000 Subject: Weasley dynamics (was Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > Debbie wrote : > > > But I don't want to suggest that Fred and George bear all the blame > > for Percy's estrangement. There's a much more complicated family > > dynamic at work, and probably everyone has contributed to the > > current state of affairs. > > > > I'll stop rambling now, before I suggest that the Weasley family is > > really Ever So Evil. > > Del answers : > > I wouldn't say they are ESE either, but I must say I'm concerned > about a family where : > 1. the oldest son took a job in Egypt > 2. the second son took a job in Romania > 3. the third son has cut all ties with the rest of the family > 4. the fourth and fifth sons haven't even finished school and have > probably left the house too. > > I wouldn't want to point at Molly, and most of all at Arthur, but I'm > not sure those two aren't responsible for the estrangement in some > way or another of their 5 oldest kids... > > Del Sophierom: I'm not really sure that Bill and Charlie's far-away jobs suggest some sort of dysfunctional family. Emotional closeness doesn't equal spacial closeness. I live far away from my parents now because I can't do what I want to do in my small town of South Carolina. And I would guess that Bill and Charlie needed to move away from their small village to pursue their careers. Besides, in a WW where one can apparate or travel through a quick floo network, I don't think moving to Romania or Egypt is nearly as a big a deal as it would be in our world. Location issues aside, I'd argue that Arthur and Molly have done a great job raising their sons, and all in all, their family dynamic is a pretty healthy one. Indeed, I'd say that all the sons, even Percy, show a great deal of independence, and if anything, this is a sign of good parenting. Arthur and Molly taught their sons to pursue their dreams and stand on their own ... even if it means being estranged or dropping out of school. Not being a parent, I can't really say for sure, but as hard as it must be to have children living far away, estranged, and/or pursuing a business you don't really like (the twins' joke shop), Arthur and Molly should at least take some pride in the fact their sons are independent adults. Sophierom From ktd7 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 18:16:43 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:16:43 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" > wrote: > > "naamagatus" : > > > > > I think that's the important point. When Harry wasn't suffering > > > under the draining presence of a dementor (and his reaction to a > I would say that JKR intends Harry to be great of heart and > character, rather than super magical. He doesn't seem extra brilliant > in magic per se (Hermione is much better than he is), but when the > magic requires also strength of character, he does seem to be head > and shoulders above his peers (and elders): holding on to Quirrell, > producing a Patronus, beating Voldemort in the graveyard, freeing > himself from Voldemort's possession in OotP. I think Harry just oozes magic. He is able to do many things instinctively. Remember all the untrained magic he did before going to Hogwarts? He also has done other wandless magic under extraordinary circumstances (blowing up Aunt Marge, opening the locked cupboard under the stairs; when Harry yells REVERSE the Ford Anglia came alive and moved on its own; He lights his wand in OOtP) Harry is not inclined to study, he's very much a typical teen in his attitude. However, when he perceives a real need to learn, he can apply himself quite diligently. In CoS, he gets paired with Malfoy in a duel, something he had NO experience doing. He holds his own against a formidable opponent. Harry works well under pressure, is able to improvise, and is not afraid to react quickly. As Harry gains confidence and experience, he becomes more and more powerful. As Naama said, it is a combination of his magical ability and his character that makes him particularly strong. As far as his teaching ability, students often make better teachers... they remember how it was to start from zero knowledge. Still, the DA were learning to do patronuses without the pressure of a Dementor in their presence. Remember in PoA that Lupin drove off the Dementor in the train car with a mere whisp of silvery stuff out of his wand. Not a corporeal patronus, apparently. When Dumbledor drove off the Dementors at the quidditch match, he did it with a non-corporeal patronus. Although Harry was not facing the Dementors when he produced his stag in PoA, he still was under stress. He later successfully sends a patronus after a boggart Dementor in GoF. And of course, his ultimate triumph was with the Dementors in OOtP. He not only was able to produce the Patronus, but also direct it, something we've never heard about previously. Again, practice and success improved his ability. As far as Harry's ability to learn Occlumency, I fault Snape's teaching methods. Simply attacking Harry's mind over and over again was something like throwing a child into the pool to teach it to swim. Some actual instruction must be done! Of course, Snape's teaching in general can be called into question. We know he is an excellent potions master, but his method of dealing with students would get him in trouble in the Muggle world in short order. How much do you think the Slytherins learn when they are not required to produce adequate results? The Gryffindors probably often do better since they have to try so much harder to achieve passing scores. Harry has had to learn potions in spite of Snape, not because of him. I think Harry is capable of doing anything he decides to do, once he is given all the facts. He has spent the past 5 years working with little real information, and yet he has managed to survive and rescue others under incredible circumstances. Karen From rmatovic at ssk.com Tue Jan 20 18:29:12 2004 From: rmatovic at ssk.com (Rebecca M) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:29:12 -0000 Subject: spamming the polls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89230 has anyone else noticed that 5 variations on the name hyenna have voted for all the characters in the dead/indisposed poll? I don't quite get the point ... if you wanted to swing the poll, you'd concentrate votes, not spread them all over. Weird, Rebecca From rayheuer3 at aol.com Tue Jan 20 18:33:27 2004 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:33:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley dynamics (was Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more We... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89231 delwynmarch at yahoo.com writes: > I wouldn't say they are ESE either, but I must say I'm concerned > about a family where : > 1. the oldest son took a job in Egypt > 2. the second son took a job in Romania > 3. the third son has cut all ties with the rest of the family > 4. the fourth and fifth sons haven't even finished school and have > probably left the house too. Ray responds: I can understand your concerns, but I think you're putting the wrong spin on things. The Weasleys live in relative poverty, and it's almost certain that the adult children would be encouraged to move out as soon as they could afford to do so. In addition: 1. Bill works in the research department of Gringott's, THE Wizard bank. We have every reason to believe that this is a prestigious and coveted position, and in any case Bill works where Gringott's sends him. 2. Charlie is a dragon expert, good enough to be assigned as handler for the dragons used in the Tri-Wizard tournament. Again, he has to go where trhe dragons are, and that happens to be Roumania. 3. Do I need to recount my whole "Blundering Dunderhead - The Next Generation" hypothesis here? 4. Fred and George did indeed finish school. In Hogwarts, the Seventh year is completely voluntary, and I suspect the twins aren't the first students to withdraw during the term - although probably the most memorable in a long time. -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kcawte at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 21 02:55:49 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:55:49 -0800 Subject: Fred & George and school leaving References: Message-ID: <000701c3dfca$140e5fa0$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89232 -- Ray > 4. Fred and George did indeed finish school. In Hogwarts, > the Seventh year is completely voluntary, and I suspect > the twins aren't the first students to withdraw during the > term - although probably the most memorable in a long time. > > K In fact the wizarding education system does seem to be based fairly closely on the British muggle system with some elements from the Scottish system and some from the English and Welsh system and in both cases (I think) you can leave after the first set of exams. In fact if you had to stay till you finished the second set then there wouldn't be very much point having the first set. In England you become an adult at 18 but can work full time from 16, in the ww these things seem to happen at 17 (it's not entirely clear if you get some rights before then). I am guessing here but I from what we know of how the ww works I would have said that you can leave with parental permission after the OWLS (the only reason to make them external exams rather than simple end of year exams like we've seen in every other book that I can see is if you can leave after you've sat them) and without parental permission when you reach 17. It's impossible to say for certain since we've not really seen much about what happens after your OWLS because we see things through Harry's eyes for the most part and his attention is, naturally, concentrated on his contemporaries. My theory about OWLS being the first set of school-leaving exams (like GCSEs) is somewhat backed up by the Auror requirements only focussing on NEWTS - in the muggle world your GCSEs are pretty much irrelevant if you have A-Levels and your A-Levels become irrelevant after you get a degree etc etc. A good set of OWLS will show that you have a broad magical knowledge to back up the more focussed study you engage in for the NEWTS (at least I assume you drop some of your subjects), but unless you've totally failed something in the basic curriculum I doubt anyone would care exactly what marks you got once you've taken your NEWTS - in which case there is no reason to have a set of exams at the end of fifth year if *everyone* goes on to take NEWTS. I think Fred and George caused such a stir because of the manner of their leaving rather than simply the fact that they left. K From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 19:08:09 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:08:09 -0000 Subject: spamming the polls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M" wrote: > has anyone else noticed that 5 variations on the name hyenna have > voted for all the characters in the dead/indisposed poll? > > I don't quite get the point ... if you wanted to swing the poll, > you'd concentrate votes, not spread them all over. > > Weird, > > Rebecca I've been out of the loop. What polls? I'd appreciate a post number or link, please. Julie From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 20 19:28:37 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:37 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > I would point out (as I have before), > that the people at the bottom of the heap in the Potterverse are not > mudbloods - they are muggles; us in other words. It is muggles that > the purebloods want permission to hunt and kill, to torture and who > Arthur Weasley patronises. > So why not complain about the term 'Muggle'? It would be more > apposite to do so, don't you think? > Now me: But Kneasy, it's made clear in the books that *no one* takes offense at the word "muggle"--it's intended to be an IDENTIFIER, sort of like "human" or "witch". But "mudblood" in canon is clearly shown to be a PEJORATIVE. Thus, there's no reason to complain about **the term** "muggle"; by JKR's design it's not packed w/ connotation. I would also ask the following: do the Death Eaters not go after muggles *selectively*, most likely those who've borne a witch or wizard, thereby "tainting" the wizarding world? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 20 19:41:29 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:41:29 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > I would say that JKR intends Harry to be great of heart and > character, rather than super magical. He doesn't seem extra brilliant > in magic per se (Hermione is much better than he is), but when the > magic requires also strength of character, he does seem to be head > and shoulders above his peers (and elders): holding on to Quirrell, > producing a Patronus, beating Voldemort in the graveyard, freeing > himself from Voldemort's possession in OotP. > > Naama NOW ME: With all due respect, I don't fully agree with this. I *do* agree that JKR shows Harry to have tremendous heart, bravery & strength of character, plus a willingness to do whatever is necessary to save others. I do, however, also believe that Harry **is** gifted with remarkable talent--talent which manifests itself clearly even though he knew nothing about it for the first 10 years of his life and so could not train or develop it. **I** think Harry came from two powerfully magic people, and whether it was "wizard genetics" or the luck of the draw or part of some larger cosmic plan of being "chosen", he was born with abilities few other wizards have. I've not been convinced so far that Harry has power BECAUSE Voldemort transferred some to him in the attack; my take is the opposite--that there was "something about Harry" from the beginning and that it was That Something with helped REPEL Voldy's attack and nearly kill him. In short, I think Harry is "gifted"-- however one wants to interpret that term--and I think the magical abilities & talents come to him naturally, not necessarily only in moments when strength of character is required. It may manifest itself more clearly then, but I think it's always there. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 19:41:58 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:41:58 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arya" wrote: > Meri wrote: > I also loved that Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just > knew he was going to be a sweet boyfriend! > > Erika (Wolfraven) wrote: > I've seen many R/Hrs mention this passage. But really I don't find > it helps the R/H cause much. Here's the quote: > > "'Thanks for the book, Harry," she said happily.'I've been wanting > that New Theory of Numerology for ages! And that perfume's really > unusual Ron.' " > (444 UK) > > Okay, clearly the perfume is an indication that Ron's interested in > Hermione, but we've known about that since GoF. But what about > Hermione's reaction? I'm not a guy, but I can't imagine that if I > were to give a girl perfume I'd want her to say it was "unusual". > Contrast this to her response to Harry's gift. She's described as > receiving Harry's gift "happily" ...edited... > > Another reason I think this quote reflects poorly on the R/H > situation is that demonstrates how little Ron understands Hermione. > It's true that many girls would be pleased to receive perfume as a > present; in fact's it's a typical if not cliche gift for a girl. > ...edited... > > Arya now: > Erika did an excellent analysis of this and I just felt compelled to > offer my opinion about the use of interpretting gifts as indicators > of feelings between two people. ... > > The perfume Hermione gets from Ron strikes very near to my heart > because there was one year with a rather newish b-friend ... gave > me perfume for Christmas. I was very disappointed in the end. > ...edited... It's something you give to a person but chose > because you, the giver intend to enjoy it. (He had said he liked it > and that's why he bought it.) The coffees, like the perfume, were > consumable. They were temporary and not lasting. > > Let's look at Harry's gift in this same light. He buys her a book > that he knew from likely overhearing Hermione mention she wanted it. > ..edited... > > Compared to Ron's gift of an "unusual" perfume which Hermione, I > think we can safely say, would rarely wear (she is rather low > maintenace). I see Ron as perhaps having a bit of a proximity crush > on Hermione. I've seen no evidence it's returned--especially since > OotP-- and do not think it would be lasting. > > Arya~~ bboy_mn: Pardon me while I reminisce. When I was young, very young (pre-teen), and also an economically challenged boy like Ron, I would go down to 'Ben Franklin's - Five and Dime', often called the 'Dime Store' for short. A place when many things to fulfil a childs desires could actually be purchased for five or ten cents. There I would buy the ladies in my life (mother, grandmother, aunts, etc...) a bottle of perfume for special holiday gifts like Christmas. This perfume came in a really small bottle and cost significantly less than a dollar. To me it was just perfune, I thought it smelled good, but looking back on it as an adult, I realize that this perfume was probably the most horrendously nasty stuff to every waft it way through the air. No doubt all the recievers of my gift found the scent 'unusual', and in hindsight, I am convinced that every bottle I ever gave ended up in the trash bin. But perfume was a one-size-fits-all 'GIRLY' type of gift, so I thought I couldn't go wrong. We know Ron is still hopelessly lost when it comes to girls; poor boy doesn't have a clue at to any aspect of the nature of women, and as far as that goes, in my many long years, I still haven't figured them out. If Ron had given Hermione a book as a gift, it would have been a 'friend' present; in his own subconscious misguided way, Ron tried to buy Hermione a 'girl' present. Although, I'm sure consciously he didn't try to make it even remotely a 'girlFRIEND' present. So he bought some perfume, a sure-fire 'girly' present, but he did it in such a totally 'GUY' sort of way. If he had been smart, he would have asked Ginny or his mom for advice, but what young boy wants to embarass himself by talking to his sister or his mum about girls? NONE, of that, I can assure you. And there was always the chance that that would lead to Fred and George finding out, and in his mind, that would lead to them taking the 'mickey' out of him until his dying day, which under those circumstances couldn't have come soon enough. So, Ron just stubbles through the whole perfume buying process on his own, and given that, and that fact that he is finacially challenged, it seems quite normal and very predictable that he would come back with a perfume very very much in the 'unusual' catagory. Ron is a total dunderhead when it come to women. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then Ron is wandering the relationship galaxy somewhere near Andromeda. So Ron screwed up in a very typical 'guy' sort of way, but come on, at least the poor boy is trying. At least he has figured out that Hermione is a girl and is trying to do things that acknowledge the fact. Besdies, isn't it girls who are always saying it's the thought that counts? Of course, from a guys perspective, it seems that the thought only counts when you happened to think of expensive jewlery and the like. Just a thought. bboy_mn From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 20:17:00 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:17:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's compassion (was Re: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > Saving Gabrielle was doing his saving-people act again :-) Annemehr: What? What exactly *is* that? I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain to me what Hermione meant by telling Harry he has a "saving-people thing." I'd have thought Harry was more accurate when he said "I don't go looking for trouble. Trouble usually finds *me.*" Does it mean that sometimes, the danger other people are in is not Harry's responsibility and he should stay out of it? If so, *that* would be a dangerous sentiment, as if Harry should say "It's none of my affair." Back to Del: Or at > least, let's say that she was a little girl in a dangerous situation, > so he acted like *anyone* in their right mind would : he got her out > of it. Cedric and Viktor didn't, precisely because they weren't in > their right mind : they were competition-driven. Harry wasn't. Annemehr: Worse and worse, Del! I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it *twice!* ;-) ~Harry "rescued" Gabrielle because of his saving-people thing -- ~AND he was doing what *anyone* would have done -- ~Except he was the only one out of three people present who did it, but that was only because the other two weren't quite sane at the time? It can't be a "saving-people thing" if anyone would have done it. And Harry can't be accused of lack of compassion but Cedric and Viktor given a pass because they were competitive. Del: > And by the way, why isn't Fleur a friend ? She hasn't done anything > awful to him. But he just doesn't like her. He doesn't like her > manners, he doesn't understand her, so he doesn't like her. So much > for showing compassion towards a student away from home and landed in > a strange environment among complete strangers. Annemehr: Why would Fleur be a friend? She obviously didn't think much of Harry until *after* he brought Gabrielle out of the lake. Where does it ever indicate Harry's hostile to her? And she doesn't need any compassion. She's on an exciting trip to compete for a coveted spot in a prestigious tournament, and she's surrounded by eleven fellow students and her headmistress. > > Naama wrote : > > > It's odd, but Harry seems to treat practically everybody with > > compassion, *except* those who richly do not deserve it. In my book > > , Harry is exceptionally kind, compassionate and brave. > > Del answers : > > Let me just give you a few names. The Creevey brothers. Ginny Weasley > at first. Luna Lovegood. Cedric Diggory. Percy Weasley. Seamus (? > That was Seamus, whose mother had a problem with Harry,right ?) in > OoP (much compassion Harry showed, not wanting to ease Seamus's > dilemma). And best of all : Hermione in PoA, and Ron in GoF. MUCH > compassion he showed them ! Annemehr: What did he ever do to them? I need examples. Or is he supposed to solve everyone's day to day problems, let alone save their lives when necessary? He helped Cedric out a lot when he didn't have to. Between he and Seamus, Harry was the one who needed compassion shown him. As for Hermione in PoA, why did she never seem to care that Crookshanks would continually attack Scabbers? And, Ron in GoF??? Harry seems to be happy to live and let live, even with Draco; he only reacts when provoked. He always forgives when apologised to (and wouldn't even let Ron quite get that far in GoF). He empathises with other people's suffering when he understands it (see GoF, where Harry's lying in bed thinking about what he'd just seen in the pensieve). With Cho in OoP he just doesn't understand, because her reaction to Cedric's murder is the opposite to his. I know Harry's not perfect (good!), but IMO you're still being too hard on him, given his age and upbringing. Annemehr From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Tue Jan 20 20:23:58 2004 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (Tracy Hunt) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:23:58 -0000 Subject: spamming the polls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M" > wrote: > > has anyone else noticed that 5 variations on the name hyenna have > > voted for all the characters in the dead/indisposed poll? > > > > I don't quite get the point ... if you wanted to swing the poll, > > you'd concentrate votes, not spread them all over. > > > > Weird, > > > > Rebecca > > I've been out of the loop. What polls? I'd appreciate a post > number or link, please. > Julie 2 new polls added recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171117 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171118 Tcy (who rarely is in the loop and is happy to be able to help) From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Jan 20 20:33:07 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:33:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's compassion (was Re: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89239 Naama wrote : >>> On the other hand, Harry is remarkably nice and compassionate to everybody else, not only to his particular friends: He protects Neville in PS (and he barely knows him at that point);>>> Del answers : >>> He protects Neville because he's a Gryffindor, but mostly because Harry doesn't like whoever is attacking Neville (Draco, Snape) and wants to fight them anyway. Neville is just an excuse.>>> Ali: IMO, there is no evidence that Harry protects Neville because he is in Gryffindor. I believe that he protects him because he dislikes the bullies who attack him, but that isn't the same as *wanting* to fight them. It's standing up and fighting for what he believes, a very different position. Naama wrote : > > he risks his life for Ginny in CoS; Del answers : >>> That's his saving-people thing. And that's also his being in the wrong place at the wrong time thing :-)<<<< I agree that Harry does have a "saving-people" thing. I believe that to be one of his virtues, even if it has led him to act rashly. But his desire to save people is hardly evidence that he isn't compassionate, is it? Harry and Ron deliberately tried to get into the Chamber of Secrets. Ron would have gone with Harry if the tunnel had not become blocked. I don't think that could be called being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He knew he was taking enormous risks, and he still chose to do it. > Naama wrote : > > >It's odd, but Harry seems to treat practically everybody with compassion, *except* those who richly do not deserve it. In my book , Harry is exceptionally kind, compassionate and brave.<<< Del answers : >>> Let me just give you a few names. The Creevey brothers. Ginny Weasley at first. Luna Lovegood. Cedric Diggory. Percy Weasley. Seamus (? That was Seamus, whose mother had a problem with Harry,right ?) in OoP (much compassion Harry showed, not wanting to ease Seamus's dilemma). And best of all : Hermione in PoA, and Ron in GoF. MUCH compassion he showed them !<<< Ali: Del, I'm not sure that I understand your argument. Colin Creevey follows Harry about. He idolises Harry and acts as a psychophant. Harry does want to get away from Colin, he doesn't like his fame. But, he's not cruel to Colin. He teaches him Defence against the Dark Arts and puts up with him. No, he doesn't relate to Colin in the same way he does to Hermione or Ron, but he is kind he is compassionate. Cedric, he feels jealous of. But, when he sets aside his embarassment about losing the Quidditch match and Cho to Cedric, he does act very fairly towards him. He tells him about the First Task, he saves him from Krum and from the spider. He forces Cedric to take the cup with him. Harry does come to learn and respect Luna. He does find her strange and he is embarassed when Cho finds him with Luna, Neville and Ginny. But, Harry fancied Cho and wished to be seen in as positive a light as possible. That feeling he experienced reminded me of my early teenage years when it was really embarassing to be caught out with my parents and family. But, notice how he matures in OoP. By the end of OoP, Harry nolonger cares for the pretty, popular but (IMO) fairly vacuous Cho. He has grown up. Harry isn't perfect, I'd find him fairly insipid if he was. I'm not sure I'd describe Harry's reaction to Seamus' "dilemma" as lack of compassion. His friend, his room mate of four years is unsure whether Harry is mad or not. Now, I don't think that Harry helped the situation, but given the stress he was under, I don't feel his anger to be exceptional. Harry did react badly to Hermione in PoA. He knew he did. He was a young teenage boy who acted thoughtlessly. Hagrid pulled him up short for it. In terms of his reaction to Ron, Ron caused their fall out. Harry didn't make up, but it coincided with one of his roughest patches at Hogwarts. Pointed at and sneered at on all sides, Harry didn't have the mental energy to spare to mend his relationship with Ron. Yes, the episode was silly. But, it doesn't point to a lack of compassion, only maturity. Ali From christophernuttall at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 21:12:09 2004 From: christophernuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:12:09 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: spamming the polls References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89240 My guess is that its a simple mistake somewhere in yahoo. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: drjuliehoward To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: spamming the polls --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M" wrote: > has anyone else noticed that 5 variations on the name hyenna have > voted for all the characters in the dead/indisposed poll? > > I don't quite get the point ... if you wanted to swing the poll, > you'd concentrate votes, not spread them all over. > > Weird, > > Rebecca I've been out of the loop. What polls? I'd appreciate a post number or link, please. Julie ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 20 21:14:52 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:14:52 -0000 Subject: Daily Prophet's sudden change of heart + Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del: > > And how did the MoM get such a total control over Hogwarts as well ? > There used to be a Council of Governors or something like that, in > control of Hogwarts. What happened to them ? Why do they let the MoM > take over Hogwarts ? One answer could be that Lucius Malfoy is > forcing them to, but he already blackmailed them in CoS, so I don't > think they would let him do it again so soon. Geoff; There is a situation in the UK which has come into being in recent years whereby, in a state school at least, the Minstry of Education can go over the heads of Governors and institute what are called "Special Measures" which may include things like replacing the headmaster. As an example, just after I took early retirement 10 years ago, my old school went into a very bad patch and the head was replaced by a new guy under these measures. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 20 21:23:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:23:16 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del : > We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about > *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. > Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted to > apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion > and no self-restraint. I went through some bad things, and I sure > sometimes wish I could make my tormentors go through what I > experienced, but I wouldn't actually do it, because I know it's plain > WRONG. You don't make the world a better place by doing bad things. > And you can't make yourself feel better by hurting others. Harry > obviously still hasn't learned that. Geoff: Come off it, Del. If Harry had no compassion or self-restraint, he would have tried to go for "Avada Kedavra". He was boiling mad; he wanted to get back in some way at Bellatrix but did he really, really, deep down want to kill her? Maybe he said so but have you never been so cross that you could do someone a serious damage or smash up the crockery...... I can recall, being a red head in my youth (aha, a Weasley cousin), that in my mid-teens, I possessed a very fiery temper and lived on a short fuse much of the time - my equivalent of an OOTP time I suppose. I would often do something in the height of temper and then realise when I had cooled off that it was perhaps unfair, plain stupid or dangerous. "When I became a man I put away childish things..." including hopefully childish emotional and uncontrolled outbursts. From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Tue Jan 20 22:16:11 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:11 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89243 "Steve" wrote: in his own subconscious misguided way, Ron tried to buy Hermione a 'girl' present. So he bought some perfume, a sure- fire 'girly' present, but he did it in such a totally 'GUY' sort of way. ARYA: I really like this perspective. I get the feeling in x-mas pasts, the trio has exchanged mostly "friend" gifts such as chocolate frogs, extra large bags of Bertie Botts beans, luxury eagle feather quills and even a nice Broomstick Servicing Kit for Harry who was the only one to have a broomstick. Now, we have Ron, post-I-know-you're- a-girl and he's a bit confused how to act with this fact in his conscious mind. It still makes an interesting perspective on the Ron versus Harry debate because, comparatively we see Harry buying a safe friend gift, but one that shows an awareness of what would make her pleased as it was something she had been wanting to get. It's kind of like Ron's stuck on assimilating Hermione his friend he's known since first year and Hermione the girl who he has these weird feelings of jealousy about. Harry, on the other hand, I think we can say he knows she's a girl (his PoV in the GoF scene) but he still sees her as Hermione, the *person* (not *girl*) she is. Hmm, a whole long psychological analysis of Harry and Ron's pasts could be delved into here, but I'm not about to do it. STEVE AGAIN: Ron is a total dunderhead when it come to women. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then Ron is wandering the relationship galaxy somewhere near Andromeda. So Ron screwed up in a very typical 'guy' sort of way, but come on, at least the poor boy is trying. At least he has figured out that Hermione is a girl and is trying to do things that acknowledge the fact. Besdies, isn't it girls who are always saying it's the thought that counts? ARYA: Um, yeah, we say that and all, but really--now here's a secret--we want you to read our minds and get us this very precise thing that we want and we want it wrapped nicely and all frilly like and we want it to be a surprise even though we will try to sneak a peek and badger you about what you got. We're totally psychotic that way. Gift Certificates do not count UNLESS the amount on the certificate greatly GREATLY exceeds our expectations for the cost of the gift you are getting us. STEVE: Of course, from a guys perspective, it seems that the thought only counts when you happened to think of expensive jewlery and the like. ARYA: Um, this is kind of related to the above and the proportinate cost of gift thing. :-) Showing us there is no amount of money that is too much for our happiness will always please us. (Unless you put it on our credit card. That's not funny.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 20 22:54:47 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:54:47 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > So Ron screwed up in a very typical 'guy' sort of way, but come on, at > least the poor boy is trying. At least he has figured out that > Hermione is a girl and is trying to do things that acknowledge the fact. > > Besdies, isn't it girls who are always saying it's the thought that > counts? > > Of course, from a guys perspective, it seems that the thought only counts when you happened to think of expensive jewlery and the like.< Some girls just think about money ...But I think Hermione recognized that it was a 'girl' gift and was very happy about the thought. Otherwise she'd have thanked Ron coolly and mentioned her Christmas letter from Viktor. The perfume itself was probably horrid cheap scent as Steve guessed...the sort of thing that smells nice in the bottle but reeks like burning tires half an hour after you put it on. The last thing Hermione wants is for Ron to buy more next time...and he's the sort of guy who would, given the slightest encouragement. So she says it's unusual, and no doubt makes a mental note to have Ginny mention to Ron that her favorite scent is lilac before her birthday rolls around. It's as honest as she can be, without hurting his feelings. I like her for it. It's much nicer than Harry, who doesn't tell her about the Elf hats. How is Hermione going to feel when she finally finds out her liberation plans aren't working, and he's known about it for ages? Pippin From nineve_laguna at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 22:56:17 2004 From: nineve_laguna at hotmail.com (nineve_laguna) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:56:17 -0000 Subject: Does anyone has any news of book6? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89245 I have scoured all HP sites in search of any news about when book 6 might be coming out and found nothing. Does snyone has any clues? I can't wait anymore! The downside of all this fascination about HP is the waiting... I hope JKR will hurry up and put us out of this misery. Meanwhile I can only wait for the PoA film. I am not a fan of the films, but I, like many others i guess will watch the film just to get a little more taste of Harry, Ron and Hermione. And the casting is getting pretty good, Gary Oldman is going to be a blast as Sirius Black. I read in HPANA that Ray Winstone might be Mad Eye Moody in GoF, I am sure british fans will be impressed by that, and for you americans, I can only asure that Ray is a fantastic actor and will be a perfect Moody. Shame Rik Maill got cut off as Peeves. Nineve From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 23:17:09 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:17:09 -0000 Subject: why the order? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > hi, > Dumbledore starts the order of phoenix the second time in the > fifth book. That's I suppose, after Fudge's reaction to the news of > Voldemort's arrival. Dumbledore thought that he won't be getting any > official support from the ministry and that any resistance has to be > underground. > But what was the reason for starting it the first time? The > ministry then was fully involved in resisting Voldemort so why the > need to start a secret group in the first place? > > spangb Sophierom: I could be wrong about this, but I think the Order of the Phoenix as a secret society is something unique to this second wizard war. At the end of GOF, Dumbledore asks Sirius to alert "the old crowd" (US ed., p713). He does not say, the old "order" or the "Order of the Phoenix." And in OOTP, when Hermionie is explaining to Harry exactly what the Order is, she says, "It's a secret society ... Dumbledore's in charge, he founded it. It's the people who fought against You-Know-Who last time." (UK ed., p.65). This seems to suggest that the Order as a secret society is new, and it doesn't seem to me that those who fought the first time around had to do so in secret. Instead, the "old crowd" was probably a group of people whom Dumbledore came to trust in the last war; unlike the Crouchs of the WW, the "old crowd" probably fought LV in a way that Dumbledore found ethically acceptable. Am I way off base about this? Other ideas? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 23:45:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:45:52 -0000 Subject: Lost wands and Sirius's motorcycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89247 Sue wrote: This wand "problem" has always bothered me as well. What happened to Peter's wand? I suppose he could have carried it into the sewer with his teeth, hidden it and then returned to get it later. But where did he keep it for 12 years? > > Honey wrote: > > I expect the question of what happens to the things in his pockets > when an animagus transforms has been discussed, so I apologize for > bringing it around again. I might guess that it works the same as the > werewolf transformation. In POA, Lupin puts Harry's Invisibility Cloak > into his pocket in the Shrieking Shack, and then transforms. He then > gives it to Harry the next day. The pocket contents appear to return > with the human form, along with the clothing. Scabbers was apparently > carrying a wand for all those years. Carol: That's what I thought until I reread the conversation in which McGonagall, Flitwick, Hagrid, Fudge, and Madam Rosmerta discuss the supposed murder of Peter Pettigrew. According to Fudge, Peter left "a heap of bloodstained robes" (PoA 208, Am. ed.)in the street along with his finger and a few other tiny bits of himself (maybe pieces of his ear since one of Scabbers's ears looks chewed up). It doesn't look as if he had any pocket to put the wand in. And where did he get the clothes he's wearing when he reemerges as a man near the end of PoA? The confrontation scene in PoA also seems to refute the theory. Sirius, whose wand was taken from him in Azkaban, at first uses Ron's wand (339) and later he uses Snape's, which he retrieves from the bed after Snape is knocked out (366). (The reference to "his own wand" on p. 376 seems to mean the wand Sirius was using as distinct from Lupin's, which has just been mentioned.) Peter is also wandless in this scene; he seizes the wand that Lupin drops when he transforms into a werewolf (381). Harry retrieves it using "Expelliarmus" as Pettigrew turns back into Scabbers (same page), so Pettigrew is again wandless when he returns to Voldemort. As for Snape's wand, Sirius must have dropped it when he transformed into Padfoot since it's back in Snape's possession when he regains consciousness and conjures up the stretchers. The entire long scene seems to indicate that animagi and werewolves don't keep their wands when they transform, at least not if the wands are in their hands. Pockets may be another matter, as the invisibility cloak reference seems to indicate. . . . Another point relating to Sirius and objects that seem to just disappear--there's an inconsistency in Hagrid's story regarding the motorcycle. In SS (Am. ed.) he says that "young Sirius Black lent it to [him]" (14) and that he'll "be takin' Sirius his bike back" (16), but in PoA he says that Sirius gave it to him because he (Sirius) wouldn't be needing it any more: "Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there [Privet Drive]. 'I won't need it anymore,' he says" (PoA 207, Am. ed.). A few lines later, Hagrid says, "He loved that motorbike, what was he givin' it ter me for?" (same page). The bike was "borrowed" (SS 14) but now (PoA) it's a gift? Has Hagrid's perception of Sirius as a "murderin' traitor" distorted his memory? Or (dare I suggest this?) did JKR forget to check the previous conversation before writing the second one? Carol, who wonders if the motorcycle is keeping company with the Flying Ford Anglia in the Forbidden Forest or if it's just forgotten, along with Fluffy, in the No Man's Land of forgotten plot devices. From helen at odegard.com Tue Jan 20 23:49:33 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:49:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c3dfb0$0e49edb0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89248 Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling than their gifts to her. Sure, we know Ron has a thing for her (and the gift of perfume very sweetly illustrated that) and Harry did indeed put thought into his gift (whatever his motives), but Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not playing favorites? Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will tell ;) Helen (LizardLaugh), who thinks Hermione harbors romantic feelings for both From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 18:22:39 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:22:39 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry's face in DD's Pensieve Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89249 I was reading Goblet of Fire last night, and I came to the part where Harry goes to DD's office after the divination-dream-scar hurts/ episode. When Dumbledore is explaining how the pensieve works, Harry notices as he pulls out some thoughts and places them in the pensieve. I don't have my book in front of me, sorry, but either Harry's face turns into Snapes, or Snape's into Harry. I'm sure it's been discussed, anyone have thoughts on what this might mean? "lizvega2" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 00:41:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:41:46 -0000 Subject: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sea Change" wrote: > Carol mentioned the "hovering charm was performed" passive voice. > > ----------- > > Sea Change replies: > > I have difficulty with this one, too. > > It's possible that House Elves aren't allowed to do magic except at > behest of their owners. If they are legally chattel and since they > are percieved as not readily leaving the house that they serve, then > their owners could be held responsible. Dobby is a wierdo, and shows > up at Privet Dr, and Harry is registered there, so that is where the > note went. But my point was that Mafalda Hopkirk, the writer of the note, either did not know who performed the hover charm or knew that Harry had not performed it but concealed the identity of "the doer of the action" (former English teacher speaking) to make it look as if Harry had performed it. (The passive voice is always vague and too often used as a means of concealment or evasion, which is why English teachers hate it). I don't think that Mafalda cares one way or another about Dobby. She's concerned about "magical activity" by "underage wizards," especially if it "risks notice by members of the non-magical community" (presumably the Masons, not the Dursleys, who already know about Harry). But the question is why she's using the passive voice to write about it (aside from the fact that it fits the style of this sublimely bureaucratic memo). The phrase "a Hover Charm was used" enables her to avoid saying straight out that Harry performed the charm. She knows that magic "was used" at Harry's "place of residence," and that Muggles (other than the Dursleys) were present. Is she just *assuming* that Harry performed the charm and using the passive voice to cover up her ignorance, or is she using the passive voice to imply that he did it when in fact she knows otherwise? The first explanation seems more likely since at this point there's no reason to assume that the MoM regards Harry as a threat. But if she knew about the Masons, wouldn't she know that Dobby was there as well? Maybe a House Elf's presence is undetectable by the MoM's radar? Which returns me to the general question of how Dumbledore (or someone else at Hogwarts) knew that Harry had moved from the cupboard under the stairs to the smallest bedroom, etc. and how they knew about the shack on the island. I've raised these questions before in an earlier post, so if you've already responded, I'm not ignoring you. I'm just several days behind on posting. Carol, who is about as successful as Iggy at lurking. :-) From abbet69 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 18:36:18 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:36:18 -0000 Subject: Questions about PS/SS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89251 Please direct me to a couple of good post that have answerred this questions. 1. "The last shop was narrow and shabby, peeling gold letters over the door read 'Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C. A single wand lay on a faded purple cushion in a dusty window." Is this wand important? Purple seems to be a popular color in the books. 2. At the end of the book, does DD give Harry the Elixir of life to save his life? "Something gold was glinting just above him. The Snitch! He tried to catch it but his arms were too heavy. He blinked. It wasn't the Snitch at all. It was a pair of glasses. How strange." The gold that was glinting just above him was DD using the PS/SS to make the Elixir of Life to save Harry. He doesn't just blink, he's really out 3 days, just feels like a blink, that's why it feels strange to see a pair of glasses when he was sure it was something gold. "'I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you ?` `It was you.' `I feared I might be too late.' `You nearly were. I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much longer ? ` `Not the Stone, boy, you ? the effort involved very nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had. As for the Stone, it has been destroyed.'" DD thought that Harry was about to die, so he did the only thing he could think of. Nobody else was around, who would know? Abbet From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 22:02:25 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:02:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Number of students (was Re: Houses and classes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040120220225.46928.qmail@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89252 Astrid wrote: >Hogwarts having (I believe) about 280 students but only 4 houses, Anneli: I'm sure I remember reading/hearing in an interview with JK that there were about 700 students at Hogwarts - or did I dream that? Anneli From lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 05:11:29 2004 From: lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com (lovegrrl) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:29 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? References: <1074538213.7469.70126.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89253 I am newish to this group and have spent some time lurking around before I had to make a little comment on the whole 'locked door' debate. Firstly, a lot of people are saying that they think Life is behind the locked door... Kneasy: >It's Life. >It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice. >"Ah!" you may say, "but Voldy wants to be immortal. How can Harry be >the opposite?" >Life is a lot more than avoiding death. > >Think about it; it's Life-force vs. Death Eaters. David: >Life is the obvious (!) counterpoint to death, with which Dumbledore >compares the contents of the room. lovegrrl: Life is *not* the opposite of Death. Birth is the opposite of Death. Life doesn't have an opposite. There's just Life. Personally, I think Love is behind the door. Truth is a possibility but as many have said already it is almost impossible to define exactly what we mean by truth... and the reason the door is locked is because the one thing that (most) people crave above all else is Love. We would give up all the powers contained in the other rooms in the MoM just to have a peek at Love. We would even give our lives (as Lily - and Sirius - did) to protect those we love. It is the reason we sacrifice ourselves. The other rooms we can enter into quite easily. Death is even played out for us on a stage... but Love is open only to a precious few. If you need more persuasion look at this quote from Gandhi: "Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and *love* has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers [read Voldemort], and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." lovegrrl, who wants to know what everyone thinks of Luna Lovegood and her sudden appearance. From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 20 22:43:50 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:43:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040120224350.50041.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89254 Honey wrote: >School age wizards may use magic which doesn't normally require a wand. This may be because the MoM can only detect magic which would normally require a wand. >>> Anneli: In PS/SS (UK ed.) p.44, Petunia about Lily: "...came home every holiday with her pockets full of frog-spawn, turning teacups into rats." Transfiguring teacups would probably require a wand. Unless Petunia's just talking nonsense. Anneli From kcawte at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 21 08:50:26 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:50:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Number of students (was Re: Houses and classes) References: <20040120220225.46928.qmail@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501c3dffb$9d76f4b0$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89255 > > Anneli: > > I'm sure I remember reading/hearing in an interview with JK that there were about 700 students at Hogwarts - or did I dream that? > K lmao - and now for one of the most discussed subjects around here! Actually she said about 1000 which fits with the crowds we see at quidditch games but doesn't match the rest of the evidence we've been given. I've yet to see *anyone* fit all the figures together in a convincing manner. Just suspend disbelief and accept that JKR is somewhat 'numerically challenged' on occasion. I think there's an essay on this subject in Fantastic Posts and at the Lexicon. K From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 23:10:36 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:10:36 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89256 Punkie: > > Sorry if I'm a cranky old woman, but I'm a cranky old woman about epithets. Kneasy: > This post is intended as an exposition of the way I approach this > potentially contentious difference of opinion. I don't expect everyone > to agree, but that's only fair since I'm good at disagreeing myself. > It, and my original post are not intended as a swipe at anyone, apart > from a small group mentioned below. Frost: Note taken. >> > But to impose real world ideology onto fictional make-believe > can lead to mis-apprehensions. I would point out (as I have before), > that the people at the bottom of the heap in the Potterverse are not > mudbloods - they are muggles; us in other words. > So why not complain about the term 'Muggle'? It would be more > apposite to do so, don't you think? > Frost: Actually, I do. If someone were to call me a Muggle, I would take offense. I have heard people use this term as an insult. Behold the power of JKR! Even so, in the WW world, it is an insult, just one that they don't think about. It's a pejorative. They look down on Muggles as silly, childish, stupid, handicapped, and lacking, all because they don't have magic. They do not see or respect the many great and terrible things non-wizards do and have done. (Face it, when wizards have to be told that a gun is a sort of "Muggle wand" they are really ignoring a lot of what Muggles can do.) Even Arthur, who has grasped that Muggles have done a lot more than the WW gives them credit for, can't help but be patronizing. > The series was written about and aimed at a UK centered world. > Sure, we've had our own problems, but on nothing like the same > scale. The vast majority of the members of minority groups here > have arrived or been born in the last 50 years. Frost: Umm... there's different sorts of minorities. England has had a history of a minority ruling over the majority, and that's what I've always seen in the books. And not just the king (Queen), I know, since the Magna Charta the office has been loosing power) but there have been the ruling class. The rich, the blue bloods. I always saw the wizards as a sort of nobility or aristocracy, only this is one that hid it's privileged life from the masses. And there has been the problem of the new aristocracy, and the old aristocracy not liking or accepting the new. Regardless of race, this is an issue of one group thinking that it's better than another. There are always slurs to go around, when there is something like that. The UK has had it's share of that. Kneazy: >There is no *history* > in the way that the US has. And to presume that the tale is > intended as, or can be construed as a metaphor for *your* history > and should conform to your social mores is, IMHO more the result > of your own experiences than in the world reflected in the books. >> Frost: You're right, ya'll have had you're own issues to deal with. But the issues are similar enough that the feelings are the same. So Punkie sees it in terms of what she experienced. That's ok, cause its part of the reading experience. No person ever reads the same book. We bring our histories, and what we know of history to the book. I think that it gives her a much better feeling of what the reaction to the word should be. I don't think that she thought it was a social metaphor for that specific issue, but a parallel, and something that she did identify with. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Punkie, since I could be off.) Kneasy: > The 'sins' manufactured by such fanatics (you cannot say dog - it's > a companion animal!) are a long, long way from mainstream > liberalism (where I presume you are positioned) and in my opinion > they deserve parody. Frost: and what a good parody too! I nearly fell out of my seat laughing! You're right. There are somethings that are overdone by the "PC" crowd. But then again, there are times to change the language. Such as Punkie's example with N***r. It's a terrible word. It has so much connotation, and there is so much bad feeling about it that it shouldn't be used. It may be shorter and easier to say tha "African-American" or whatever other terms there are, but you cannot shed the connotations brought up by it. Not being British I can't bring up any appropriate parallel terms, but I have no doubt that they are out there. Anyhow, in the Potterverse, "Mudblood" is probably one that would fall under the terms of needing to be changed. Kneazy: > For a different reason JKR has also invented a verbal sin, a term to describe a specific sub-group. In the WW it is meant to be shocking, but I am not in the WW and never will be; I have no qualms in using it, and doing so says absolutely nothing about my attitudes or societal stance in real life. It doesn't insult anyone in the real world, only in the Potterverse. > To assume otherwise is something I find incomprehensible; it's an exercise in "let's pretend this means something nasty about real people so we can stop them using it." I'm a libertarian; reasonable freedom of expression is a tenet that is almost sacred. Unsurprisingly I deny others the right to dictate or censor my use of a made-up word describing a fictional concept. Sorry to get so emphatic, but it does make my blood boil. Others may read into the word what they may, but include me out. And honestly, do you really think that anything said on this site will affect or hurt Harry or Hermione in the slightest? > Frost: Yes, I do. Can't you see Hermione crying now? :( (jk) ;) In reality, I both agree with you and disagree with you. The term, unless adopted by the language, doesn't mean thing to anyone real, and isn't going to hurt anyone. But then again, it does describe a real issue, even if the particular group named isn't real. You can easily insert any sort of derogatory term about any people group in the sentence, and have it make sense, and I can see how people would use those terms to define the word. What's more, identifying "Mudbloods" with "Chink," "Jap," or even "N***r" is precisely what JKR wanted us to do. (again, Any British equivalent that I don't know, please fill in the blank) The word is meant to be offensive. Personally, I think I'll refrain from using it from now on because it'll take away from my experience of the books. But that is a personal decision, because, after all, it's not a real group. I'm glad this issue came up because I didn't really think about it till now. Now I associate the word with some things that I do find really offensive and I can understand the reaction that was given better. Bleh. Anyhow, before I go, I want to apologize for using a couple of the terms I did to make my point, in case anyone was offended. I really don't like those words, though I guess that's obvious from how I was using them. Bleh. Frost From kcawte at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 21 08:55:32 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:55:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions References: <20040120224350.50041.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003d01c3dffc$541faae0$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89257 > Anneli: > In PS/SS (UK ed.) p.44, Petunia about Lily: > "...came home every holiday with her pockets full of frog-spawn, turning teacups into rats." > Transfiguring teacups would probably require a wand. Unless Petunia's just talking nonsense. > K Perhaps the no magic out of school rule is a new one. The Ministry probably felt that with Voldemort and his gang attacking muggles it would be safest to keep the muggles as far away from wizards as possible and didn't want this plan scuppered by a nosy muggle investigating after his teacup turned into a rat. Hmm, it's interesting that she mentioned rats specifically, bearing in mind how important a certain rat has been to Petunia's family. K From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 23:40:37 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:40:37 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89258 Frost: Everyone seems to think that Harry is either completely unremarkable or extremely remarkable. Why does it have to be either? He has some talents. He is naturally good at flying. He has a knack for fighting the Dark Arts. He does have some strong character points. He also has some weaknesses. He has a hot temper, and an inability to trust people. (Ok Sehkmet &co. You guys convinced me.) He grew up abused and isolated, and (at least from the isolated side) I can say personally that screws with your ability to relate to other people. He's a teenager, and has all the angsty drawbacks and fun perks that come with being so. In a word, he's human. I like him. He's not perfect, but he's got his strengths. He has the potential to be great, and not great because he's the perfect, oh so powerful Harry Potter, but because he struggled, and made the right choices, or at least the best ones he could. And because he failed, and had to struggle with that too. I think he's a great character. I don't think he's the perfect person, but then, I wouldn't care about him so much if he were perfect. I mean, cummon`. If he were perfect we wouldn't be here arguing weather or not he was going to die. We'd know by now. Is he ego centrist? Yes. He grew up where he HAD to look out for himself, and only himself. 'Cause of Dudley and the Dursleys he didn't ever really have a chance to care about anyone else. But he's learning. He makes mistakes. How else do you learn? He also does the right thing. He was sensitive enough to get Hermione a gift that she really wanted, that he probably just overheard her mentioning at some random point. He's selfish enough to think that he's the only one who can figure out what is going on. He now has to deal with the backlash of the HUGE mistake that he made at the end of the year. (I think it'll be very interesting.) I think he's extraordinary in *some* magical realms, like Flying, & DADA. I think How he learned his Patronus Charm is different than everyone else, and I do think he picked it up in a more real way, and probably quicker than other people his age would have. (The rest of them, a year older, have yet to try and face a Dementor) I do think that he has a larger "demon" to face in the dementor than most people (He fainted on the train, when most everyone else didn't. (If someone else did, we didn't hear about it.) But that he DID learn to fight them off shows strength of character. He also shows no real knack for herbology, or care of Magical creatures, and none whatsoever in Divination (well, that one insight that Buckbeak was going to live, but we know that wasn't a real divination from his POV). I like him, but not because he's a great perfect person. I like him because his struggles remind me of my own, and that really lets me feel his humanity. Frost From Lolatsukino at aol.com Tue Jan 20 23:48:56 2004 From: Lolatsukino at aol.com (Kelly) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:48:56 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book & Unusual Love Potions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89259 Nemi said: > But, remember, Mrs. Weasley said she got her husband with a > love potion. > Ron was presumably brought up with this story. Kelly (de-lurking): I don't mean to pick apart your post, Nemi, but in PoA it was said that Mrs. Weasley told Hermione and Ginny about a love potion she made as a young girl. It never said that she concocted it for the purpose of attracting her husband. Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't Rita Skeeter say in one of her articles that love potions were illegal? Kelly, who is on holiday in Florida and sadly doesn't have her books From bcbgx6 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 23:55:36 2004 From: bcbgx6 at yahoo.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:55:36 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and Siblings, plus a bit o' R/H analysis Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89260 Some great points out there about the Weasleys. Consider these, though (if they've already been made, then don't post my post): JKR seems to show that with the Weasleys, blood is thicker than water (or something like I think that saying means). For example: The twins tell Percy that he's not sitting at the prefects' during Christmas because "Christmas is for families." (SS?) For example: The twins ask Percy why he doesn't have his Weasley sweater on. (SS?) For example: Percy looks "younger" in GOF when Ron emerges from the lake. Ron must be removed from Percy's "clutches." The Weasley twins don't cut Percy much slack, but I'd be the last one to rip his character apart in front of them as a non-family member. In a like manner, I don't believe for a minute that Percy isn't pained by his family situation. All evidence shows he is the odd man out in the family. His temperament is VERY serious, a trait he shares with none of the other Weasleys as far as I can tell. He is so "On task" that he can't even be polite when Harry and friends come up the stairs while he's working on his cauldron report. It's quite common to be in families with people with whom you'd never associate if they were strangers. I think Percy ended up the odd man out, but I wouldn't bet that he's cut off from the family for good. About Ron and Hermione: I think JKR has Hermione watching Ron. I'm not sure that Hermione has a crush on Ron, but she watches him very closely. His actions affect her mood. Perhaps the most powerful example of this occurs in OOTP when Ron rips Percy's letter and calls him "the world's biggest git." Hermione looks at him strangely and then her mood changes for the better, so much so that she reverses her policy of tough love and finishes the boys' essays. I think the look she gave him was one of appraisal. JKR has stated her favorite author to be Jane Austen. Though I don't see her books as imitative of Austen's, it's possible that JKR will handle any potential romantic pairings in an Austenian way. In Jane Austen's books, the heroines end up with the best match possible under the circumstances. If JKR patterns any HP romances like this, then Ron and Hermione might end up together, but only if Ron goes through a serious revelation or change. I think Hermione's appraisals show a hope for the man she thinks Ron could be, but if he doesn't measure up, he's got no chance. Such a change in Ron, such as the one Hermione seems to detect in his rejection of Percy's letter, will be a change that shows Ron to be Hermione's equal, if not in intellect, then in human development. Note that Ron's refusal to back her up when confronting Fred and George chafes her. His treatment of the Percy letter shows her that Ron is not completely blinded by family ties and that he is becoming his own man. "Brian" From jmmears at comcast.net Wed Jan 21 01:18:08 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:18:08 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, EnsTren at a... wrote: > A strange thought occured to me. As has been said "unusual" is an odd word > to describe perfume, if she was trying to be polite "nice" would have been > better. > > But, rtemember, Mrs. Weasley said she got her husband with a love potion. > Ron was presumably brought up with this story. Given this, giving love potions > is an acceptable way to get the girl in his upbringing. > > A love potion as a perfume could certainly count as being "unusual." I think that you are mistaken about Mrs. Weasley saying that "she got her husband with a love potion" (in fact, I'm sure you are ;). The incident you are referring to occured in POA, chapter 5 "They headed down to breakfast, where Mr. Weasley was reading the front page of the Daily Prophet with a furrowed brow and Mrs. Weasley was telling Hermione and Ginny about a love potion she'd made as a young girl. All three of them were rather giggly." I don't think that passage implies that Mrs. Weasley used the potion on Arthur and I just thought I'd point that out, since Molly already comes in for quite a lot of criticism without her being charged with using nefarious means to snare poor Arthur . Jo Serenadust From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 01:44:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:44:52 -0000 Subject: Perkins & the meaning of Warlock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89262 Nemi wrote: > I was thinking it over, and while Warlock, in the dictionary, means > "Oathbreaker" and "Traitor" I did take note of the points you made and had a though. > > What if the wizarding meaning "warlock" is in the more morden means from the > might and magic games and the like. Someone who battles with magic, a magical > warrior, or whatnot, but isn't an Auror, and made something of a carreer out > of it. > > It fits the rough and rowdy imagry AND Dumbledore's distinction of being a > "Chief Warlock" > > Thoughts? Carol: It seems to me, based on the "venerable-looking wizards . . . and wild-looking warlocks" quote that a warlock is not an old wizard, as someone (Steve?) suggested; they appear to be distinct entities (not sure what that implies about Ernie MacMillan's ancestry!). After reading your post, I decided to check my own dictionary(ies). The Random House College Dictionary defines "warlock" as 1) "a man aided by the devil in practicing magic arts; sorcerer" and 2) "a fortune teller or conjurer." It derives from Old English words meaning oath breaker or devil (= covenant betrayer). Webster's Tenth Collegiate has a similar but more elaborate etymology tied in with lying. That definition is 1) "a man practicing the black arts: SORCEROR--compare WITCH" and 2) "conjurer." Clearly these aren't the definitions JKR is working with (for one thing, she wouldn't use American dictionaries, but they're all I have at hand. :-) Also, of course, her warlocks are not necessarily practitioners of the Dark Arts). These definitions sound more like Sauron before the drowning of Numenor than anyone in the Potterverse, even Voldemort or Grindelwald. IIRC she does use the word "sorceror" at least once in connection with Voldemort, so maybe "sorceror" = powerful dark wizard, but clearly "warlock" is something altogether different. Another interesting point: The Lexicon mentions Elfrida Clagg (1612-1687) as Chieftainess of the Warlocks Council, which seems to imply that a warlock isn't necessarily male (or at least that women can be members of these apparently influential councils and federations). That doesn't clear up the definition much, unfortunately. Anyway, thanks for the idea, Nemi, but back to square one for me! Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 02:09:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:09:43 -0000 Subject: Underage magic was: "Occulus Repairo!" charm by Hermione In-Reply-To: <20040116194712.62347.qmail@web25007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89263 > Mandy wrote: > It seems to me that only wand magic is completely illegal for > children and the MOM is always aware when a child breaks that law. > > > Anneli: > Is the thing the MoM is aware of the fact that a child's wand has been used for magic? Like, Harry got blamed when Dobby used his wand. So a child could use someone else's wand freely, without being caught? Carol: Dobby doesn't use Harry's wand--and doesn't need it. House Elf magic is always wandless. He'd be in even more trouble than Harry if he used one, in any case; it's a violation of wizard law for a non-human magical creature to use a wand. Carol, who wonders just how much the MoM knows and how they know it From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 02:10:16 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:10:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's far from ruthless Was:Re: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89264 sachmet96 wrote: DD tells him that Voldemort left Quirrell to die he doesn't even ask if Quirrell is dead. How much more ruthless can you get? I think one of Harry's weaknesses is that he is able to show compassion and such but only for people he likes/cares about. People he dislikes do not concern him. The only curious thing is that he didn't dislike Quirrell a whole year long but also doesn't ask if he is alive at the end, of course he saw a different Quirrell but still I think that's a character trait that one should not overlook. vmonte responds: Harry is not ruthless. JKR does this type of thing through all the books. When she doesn't want to explain something she just doesn't let her characters ask questions. Harry does this through out all the books. He doesn't ask DD (or anyone else) if his Grandparents are alive? He doesn't ask what his parents did for a living? He doesn't trace his ancestry, although he notices a book on wizarding genealogy at Sirius's house. He doesn't ask someone what spell Luna's mother had done that got her killed? When Ollivander tells him that he remembers Harry's parents, and every wand he ever sold, Harry never asks what kind of wands did they get? And what were my parents like? I could go on and on... From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 02:24:50 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:24:50 -0000 Subject: Percy (was : Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89265 Del wrote: My sister and I didn't tease each other and here's why : we grew up in France, where teasing in a national sport. We went to school, where teasing was the main way of communication between students. It might have sounded innocent, but it actually did a lot of damage to our self-esteem. When people keep mocking you, you begin to wonder if they don't truly mean what they say. You have to be absolutely sure of their love for you, and that they really don't mean it, to come out of it without any doubt about yourself. And teenagers rarely have that kind of certainties. When I read about how the twins treat their siblings, I have bad, painful memories coming up. Memories of people who pretended to love me, but who kept saying hurtful things to me, or who kept undermining everything I did (like the twins undermined Percy's and Ron's jobs as Prefects). But I don't see that Percy is taking himself really too seriously. He's rightfully proud of his accomplishments. He's shouldering his responsibilities squarely whenever he has to, and expects respect for that. He's doing well at work, and rightfully expects to be complimented for that. That's what family is for, isn't it ? When a member of my family does something great, I compliment them, it seems natural to me. vmonte responds: I'm sorry people made fun of you when you were growing up. But I don't think that what you experienced is the same as what Percy has experienced from his brothers. I see the Weasley family as being very loving. I do not see it the way you do. Percy is who he is not because he was treated badly by his brothers but because he has made his own unique choices in life. You are right that there is nothing wrong with having friends who do not have a sense of humor, it's just difficult for those that do because they may have to walk on egg shells all day long. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 02:27:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:27:51 -0000 Subject: "More wonderful and More Terrible than Death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > >Karen said > >I think JKR chose the word HEART because it has so many possible > >definitions beyond just LOVE. Maybe she wasn't trying to align each > >house with the word, but just maybe, the word HEART ultimately sums > >up what unites Hogwarts and what is needed to unite the wizarding > >world. If Harry is a descendent of all the original founders of > >Hogwarts, he could embody HEART in all of its definitions. > > > > Perhaps heart could be a combination of the four houses, as with the > four chambers of the Heart. Each house supposedly represents a > certain trait, perhaps the perfect heart/person will have an equal > balance of the 4 traits. > > Andrew Nice idea, but wouldn't that make Percy the perfect person? Intelligence (all those OWLs and NEWTs), courage of sorts (defying his family), loyalty (to old Barty Crouch and now, alas, to Fudge), and ambition? Carol From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 01:01:05 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:01:05 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions In-Reply-To: <20040120224350.50041.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > Honey wrote: > >School age wizards may use magic which doesn't normally require a wand. This may be because the MoM can only detect magic which would normally require a wand. >>> I just had a thought. The MOM sends Harry letters when he doesn't use his wand. In COS- The Hover Charm was used, no wand, but Harry received a notice anyway. In POA the ministry had already modified Marge's memory by the time Harry stepped off the night bus- they knew - but again, Harry didn't use his wand. Which leads me to believe that the MOM doesn't know squat about the person/creature casting the spells, nor do they know how they're being cast in the first place. They just know that magic is being used. My theory has flaws, of course, because the Weasley's use magic to connect the Dursley's fireplace to the floo network. NO letter on that one, but, perhaps Arthur had permission. Don't know. And, that pesky patronous charm in OOP, doesn't help my cause either. Harry used his wand, and they knew, but did they really know it was Harry, or is it like Amelia Bones said at Harry's trial, "That situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events" (OOP P. 143)They just use magical radar for Little Whinging? And, if something happens, well then it must be Harry doing it. Notice, she uses the word 'situation', I think that's a funny way of refering to a geographic location. Hmmmmm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 02:44:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:44:14 -0000 Subject: Do the Dead Walk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: > Anne writes that Hagrid has never lied thus far in the series. > > I'm pretty sure he was lying when Harry asked what he was doing in > Knockturn Alley in CoS. His explanation that he was looking for a > Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent doesn't sound convincing to me. Can't > prove it, of course, just feel he had some other (not necessarily > bad) reason for being there. > > Sylvia (who feels that we can't say, at this stage, of anyone that he > never lies) Not to mention that JKR's other good characters sometimes lie--even Hermione in the troll-in-the-bathroom scene in PS/SS. Harry even lies to Dumbledore about not having anything to tell him (Parseltongue, etc.) in CoS. I'm sure there are other more recent examples, but as I'm rereading the early books at the moment, that's where my thoughts are now. Hagrid does make seemingly factual statements that turn out to be wrong, notably that all the witches and wizards who went wrong were from Slytherin (if you think that Peter Pettigrew was a Slytherin, this example won't work for you, but I'm sure there are others). I mentioned his inconsistent versions of the flying motorcycle story in a previous post. I don't think he's lying, but his emotions may have interfered with the accuracy of his memory. Happens to me all the time. :-) Carol From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jan 21 02:50:07 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:50:07 -0000 Subject: why the order? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89269 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > Dumbledore starts the order of phoenix the second time in the > > fifth book. But what was the reason for starting it the first time? The > > ministry then was fully involved in resisting Voldemort so why the > > need to start a secret group in the first place? Sophierom replied: > > I could be wrong about this, but I think the Order of the Phoenix as > a secret society is something unique to this second wizard war. At > the end of GOF, Dumbledore asks Sirius to alert "the old crowd" > (US ed., p713). He does not say, the old "order" or the "Order of > the Phoenix." > And in OOTP, when Hermionie is explaining to Harry > exactly what the Order is, she says, "It's a secret society ... > Dumbledore's in charge, he founded it. It's the people who fought > against You-Know-Who last time." (UK ed., p.65). This seems to > suggest that the Order as a secret society is new, and it doesn't > seem to me that those who fought the first time around had to do so > in secret. Instead, the "old crowd" was probably a group of people > whom Dumbledore came to trust in the last war; unlike the Crouchs of > the WW, the "old crowd" probably fought LV in a way that Dumbledore > found ethically acceptable. > Now me, Marianne: In Chapter Nine, when Mad-Eye shows Harry a picture of these folks, he calls them "Original Order of the Phoenix." So,I think OoP existed during Vmort War I. And, later in the same chapter Lupin, in trying to reassure Molly about her family's situation, says something to the effect that this time, they are much better prepared or forewarned or something. Which doesn't answer the original question of why there was a need for OoP originally. The only thing I can come up with is that the Ministry was caught so flat-footed that it couldn't get its bureaucratic power in gear fast enough. Plus, I wonder how many DEs or Voldemort supporters were in key positions in the Minstry, thereby hampering whatever actions the MoM sought to take? Marianne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 03:20:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:20:00 -0000 Subject: thoughts about wands and broomsticks In-Reply-To: <20040117162048.15386.qmail@web25005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89270 anneli lucas wrote: Are > wands mainly a conduit for magic, or do they contain a > lot of their own magic? I think that wands are magical in themselves. First, according to Ollivander, all wands have a powerful magical substance as a core (his wands have unicorn tails, Phoenix feathers and dragon heart-strings). why go to all the trouble and danger of obtaining these substances if their presence or absence didn't matter? Size and the type of wood also seem to matter. (The wood may be chosen for the degree of flexibility or, more likely, for the magical properties of the wood. We had a thread on yew vs. holly a while back.) In any case, the wand chooses the wizard (Harry got virtually no results until he tried the right one) and wands are particularly well-suited for different types of magic. Lily's first wand (I don't remember its properties) was "a nice wand for charm work" (hint of something to come?) whereas James's was more powerful and good for transfiguration. Tom Riddle's (which shares a core with Harry's) is both large and extremely powerful. I suppose Voldemort could AK or Crucio someone using Fleur's wand (core of Veela hair), but it probably would require more effort than it would with his own wand. Also, wands seem to respond to their owner's will (if the owner is a powerful enough wizard). Snape cleans up spilled potions and Dumbledore rearranges the furniture without a spoken command. I believe that McGonagall wordlessly lights a fire in Snape's grate, but I'd have to check that one. At any rate, they seem to have some sort of mind-reading ability (like the Sorting Hat and the Marauder's Map), though perhaps not to the same degree. Could a Squib do magic with one? Probably not--he or she would never find the right wand (nice wand for talking to cats?) and would be too weak magically to manage anyone else's. Wands *are* a conduit for magic (it's easier to cast a spell with one than without one), but that's not all they are IMO. (If a wizard loses his wand, he can't just pick up, say, a snare drum stick and use that in its place.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 03:29:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:29:32 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpoldfan" wrote: > Has there been any discussion on where the ghosts came from. In the > muggle world in both fiction and in the few documented cases from > real life ghosts haunt the place that they died. > > Does this mean that the ghosts were at Hogswarts as teachers or > other staff. Or in the WW are ghosts more mobile? > > Bill I think they haunt (if that's the right word) the place where they want to be. Possibly the Grey Lady (the Ravenclaw ghost, about whom we know almost nothing) was a teacher at Hogwarts and died there, but Sir Nick was a knight and was beheaded, presumably for treason (or perceived treason) to the Crown. I very much doubt that his execution took place at Hogwarts. Myrtle was murdered in the girls' bathroom, but she wasn't forced to stay there until she started hauntiing Olive Hornby. (i'm not sure who could force a ghost to stay (mostly) in one place: most likely the Bloody Baron. (His presumably violent death probably didn't take place at Hogwarts, either. I'm guessing that he was a former student around the time Hogwarts was founded or slightly afterwards, and maybe the school was the only home he ever knew. (I don't think the Bloody Baron is a bad guy, however scary he may appear. He can control Peeves, after all.) As for ghosts elsewhere in the WW, we haven't met any, have we? Carol From amani at charter.net Wed Jan 21 03:37:00 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:37:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology References: Message-ID: <00cf01c3dfcf$d4e1d4a0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89272 Kneasy: >> > But to impose real world ideology onto fictional make-believe > can lead to mis-apprehensions. I would point out (as I have before), > that the people at the bottom of the heap in the Potterverse are not > mudbloods - they are muggles; us in other words. > So why not complain about the term 'Muggle'? It would be more > apposite to do so, don't you think? > Frost: Actually, I do. If someone were to call me a Muggle, I would take offense. I have heard people use this term as an insult. Behold the power of JKR! Even so, in the WW world, it is an insult, just one that they don't think about. It's a pejorative. They look down on Muggles as silly, childish, stupid, handicapped, and lacking, all because they don't have magic. They do not see or respect the many great and terrible things non-wizards do and have done. (Face it, when wizards have to be told that a gun is a sort of "Muggle wand" they are really ignoring a lot of what Muggles can do.) Even Arthur, who has grasped that Muggles have done a lot more than the WW gives them credit for, can't help but be patronizing. Taryn: There's a very definite difference between a word that is defined as being a horribly insulting term and a word that, in the wrong tone or intent, can BECOME an insult. Muggle is not an inherently insulting term. From people like the Malfoys, who sneer it out in an obviously derogatory manner, it is an insult. But from other Wizards who don't happen to be prejudice, it can simply be a defining term. (i.e. A muggle is a human without magical powers. The end.) Mudblood, on the other hand, is formed only as an insult to those Wizards who are muggle-born. There's no nice/neutral way to use it. --Taryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From joi_foley at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 02:46:52 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:46:52 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Cruciatus Curse (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89273 >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: Del : We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted to apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion and no self-restraint. I went through some bad things, and I sure sometimes wish I could make my tormentors go through what I experienced, but I wouldn't actually do it, because I know it's plain WRONG. You don't make the world a better place by doing bad things. And you can't make yourself feel better by hurting others. Harry obviously still hasn't learned that. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: Geoff: Come off it, Del. If Harry had no compassion or self-restraint, he would have tried to go for "Avada Kedavra". He was boiling mad; he wanted to get back in some way at Bellatrix but did he really, really, deep down want to kill her? Maybe he said so but have you never been so cross that you could do someone a serious damage or smash up the crockery...... "When I became a man I put away childish things..." including hopefully childish emotional and uncontrolled outbursts. joi (new member, from philly, pa): I think you have a great point Geoff, but I'd like to add something: Bellatrix is a horrible person. She's a DE, and one of the most noticable, and therefore, quite possibly, one of the worst. In LV's heyday, she probably threw around Unforgivables without a second thought. Harry used the Cruciatus Curse, but he used it against someone who deserved it. I, personally, don't think Harry meant it at all. And he had every reason to mean it, too- Bellatrix, as a DE, represented the arms of evil that plagued the WW, the evil that killed his family, took Sirius away from him TWICE, and gave him years' worth of troubles. Despite that, Harry's Cruciatus didn't do much, and also warranted Bellatrix's comment that he had to mean it for it to work. Also, I think it's a very safe and fair assumption that Harry was reacting to his adolescent temper. Anger's like that- it makes you get all caught up in a moment. It's just another lesson he learned, or is in the process of learning, really. Quite often, we see Harry say and do things that upset others, and then have to work out what he did wrong. As JKR was quoted as saying, "I...wanted to reflect the fact that life can be difficult and confusing between the ages of eleven and seventeen, even when armed with a wand." thanks, joi. From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 21 02:59:38 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:59:38 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frost_indri" wrote: > Frost: > snip> I like him, but not because he's a great perfect person. I like > him because his struggles remind me of my own, and that really lets > me feel his humanity. > > Frost I was going to pull myself out of this argument but for the sake of making my perspective clear, I will post one more time and then return quietly to lurking. My opinion of Harry has never been that he is perfect. No one is. I only feel that the perspective that he is inately evil is off the mark. He used an unforgivable curse, bad choice, not a bad person. He also saved the life of Peter Pettigrew when he could have allowed him to be murdered. It would have been SO easy for a cold person to allow that to happen, who would Harry have seen as more deserving of the death penalty? It seems to me then that as it would be biased and one sided to see Harry as perfect in every way, it is equally as one sided to see him as evil. He is HUMAN and he is YOUNG. I will say no more :). Sue (Who believes that Harry will prove how extrordinary he is by the end of book 7) From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 03:50:11 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:50:11 -0000 Subject: Does anyone has any news of book6? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nineve_laguna" wrote: > I have scoured all HP sites in search of any news > about when book 6 might be coming out and found nothing. > Does snyone has any clues? I can't wait anymore! > The downside of all this fascination about HP is the > waiting... I hope JKR will hurry up and put us out of > this misery. Meanwhile I can only wait for the PoA film. > I am not a fan of the films, but I, like many others i guess > will watch the film just to get a little more taste of Harry, > Ron and Hermione. And the casting is getting pretty good, Gary > Oldman is going to be a blast as Sirius Black. I read in HPANA > that Ray Winstone might be Mad Eye Moody in GoF, I am sure > british fans will be impressed by that, and for you americans, > I can only asure that Ray is a fantastic actor and will be a perfect > Moody. Shame Rik Maill got cut off as Peeves. > Nineve I was told by another HP fan that Book 6 would be out next December. I'm not sure where she received this info. I think from "The Snitch" website. Diana From evankimjeff at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 03:05:42 2004 From: evankimjeff at yahoo.com (evankimjeff) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:05:42 -0000 Subject: Questions about PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89276 Abbet: > 2. At the end of the book, does DD give Harry the Elixir of life to save his life? > > > DD thought that Harry was about to die, so he did the only thing > he could think of. Nobody else was around, who would know? When I was rereading PS/SS a few week ago this occurred to me too. There has been discussion about Harry being immune to poisons on this list. I wonder if having a drop of the Elixer of Life mixed with Fawkes' tears at the end of CoS has helped with him being immune to poisons. This could be interesting in future books. Kim (I dont post often, just enjoy reading comments) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 04:11:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:11:16 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Cruciatus Curse (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "makemeatree" wrote: > >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" > wrote: > > Del : > We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about > *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. > Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted > to apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion > and no self-restraint. I went through some bad things, and I sure > sometimes wish I could make my tormentors go through what I > experienced, but I wouldn't actually do it, because I know it's > plain WRONG. You don't make the world a better place by doing bad > things. And you can't make yourself feel better by hurting others. > Harry obviously still hasn't learned that. > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > Geoff: > Come off it, Del. If Harry had no compassion or self-restraint, he > would have tried to go for "Avada Kedavra". He was boiling mad; he > wanted to get back in some way at Bellatrix but did he really, > really, deep down want to kill her? Maybe he said so but have you > never been so cross that you could do someone a serious damage or > smash up the crockery...... > > "When I became a man I put away childish things..." including > hopefully childish emotional and uncontrolled outbursts. > > > joi (new member, from philly, pa): > > I think you have a great point Geoff, but I'd like to add something: > Bellatrix is a horrible person. She's a DE, and one of the most > noticable, and therefore, quite possibly, one of the worst. In LV's > heyday, she probably threw around Unforgivables without a second > thought. Harry used the Cruciatus Curse, but he used it against > someone who deserved it. > > I, personally, don't think Harry meant it at all. And he had every > reason to mean it, too- Bellatrix, as a DE, represented the arms of > evil that plagued the WW, the evil that killed his family, took > Sirius away from him TWICE, and gave him years' worth of troubles. > Despite that, Harry's Cruciatus didn't do much, and also warranted > Bellatrix's comment that he had to mean it for it to work. > > Also, I think it's a very safe and fair assumption that Harry was > reacting to his adolescent temper. Anger's like that- it makes you > get all caught up in a moment. It's just another lesson he learned, > or is in the process of learning, really. Quite often, we see Harry > say and do things that upset others, and then have to work out what > he did wrong. As JKR was quoted as saying, "I...wanted to reflect the > fact that life can be difficult and confusing between the ages of > eleven and seventeen, even when armed with a wand." > > thanks, > > joi. Oh, I think Geoff and Joi said it perfectly, I just wanted to add my two cents. Aren't we forgetting something here? Yes, Harry tried to use Crucio on Beatrix (which in my opinion she deserved and much more :o)), but he failed to do so, because he did not have the necessary intent. Even in the moment of greatest pain and hurt, Harry did not have the intent to torture another so called human being (Sorry, I have absolute zero compassion and tolerance for murderers in RL(except murder in self-defense) and same goes for the fictional reality too). The main reason why Harry is my favorite character is his compassion. He agonizes over the fact that he will have to kill Voldemort or to be killed . That gives him an extra-credit in my book. Nope, I am not worried about Harry's moral compass at all. Most of the time it works just fine for fifteen year old who has been through a life time of misery an a lot of fighting with Evil Dark Lord. :o) If he does not grasp some concepts yet ( like the fact that the man, who humiliated and abused him since his first day in Hogwarts, may have actually done a lot of brave things too, which deserve respect), he still has two more books to grow up and as I said, I have complete faith in him. :o) Some other characters, on the other hand, are long overdue for some growing up. :o) I see no foreshadowing that Harry would ever join Dark side. Didn't JKR said that he would not? I know, I know , just an interview. But although she often avoids important questions, I don't think she openly lied yet in her interviews. Yes, life is often shades of gray, but I think that sometimes we tend to overcomplicate things. Some choices are black and white to me (and no, I am not that young anymore, unfortunately) and I think that Harry grasps many fo them just right. Alla From erikal at magma.ca Wed Jan 21 05:43:45 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:43:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perfume vs. Book Message-ID: <01f701c3dfe1$89b85320$3c01bfce@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 89278 bboy_mn wrote: >But perfume was a one-size-fits-all >'GIRLY' type of >gift, so I thought I couldn't go wrong >If Ron had given Hermione a book as a >gift, it would have been a >'friend' present; in his own >subconscious misguided way, Ron tried >to >buy Hermione a 'girl' present. >So he bought some perfume, a sure-fire >'girly' present, but he did it >in such a totally 'GUY' sort of way. >So Ron screwed up in a very typical >'guy' sort of way, but come on, at >least the poor boy is trying. At least >he has figured out that >Hermione is a girl and is trying to do >things that acknowledge the fact. This is quite a compelling analysis of Ron's perspective on the whole gift issue. My problem with Ron's gift, however, isn't that he ends up getting an "unusual" perfume. I don't blame him for being unable to pick or afford good perfume. I take your point that in Ron's mind he may well have been attempting to acknowledge that Hermione is indeed a girl and a book to him wouldn't do that. What I'm critical of is the fact that it's a _generic_ gift. He could have given it to any girl. It's like a formula: girl gifts=perfume, flowers, chocolate, jewelery. Ron tries to get a gift for a girl, not a gift for _Hermione as a girl_. Now maybe this is just a result of Ron being a fifteen year-old and rather clueless boy. But it also on some level seems to typify the gulf between Ron and Hermione. He's known her for five years and he can't figure out something as basic as a Christmas gift she'd like? He's suddenly interested in her as a girl but forgets about her as Hermione? Somehow in his mind he can't seem to see both at once. As fro Harry and his gift, I think Arya summed it up nicely: Arya wrote : >Harry, on the other hand, I think we >can say he knows she's a >girl (his PoV in the GoF scene) but he >still sees her as Hermione, >the *person* (not *girl*) she is. back to bboy_mn: >Of course, from a guys perspective, it >seems that the thought only >counts when you happened to think of >expensive jewlery and the like. Let's not generalize, shall we? Some girls like jewelery, some don't. What's important is to tailor the gift to the girl in question, not just buy a catch-all item. A gift well-suited to the girl suggests thoughtfulness far more than a gift which could be given to _any_ girl. But, hey, maybe that's just me ;) Best, Erika (Wolfraven) For friendly shipping discussion join us at The Great Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGreatDebate [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sophierom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 04:37:21 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:37:21 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (was : Re: Ron is like Percy ) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89279 Del wrote: Sophierom: I've really found this discussion of the Weasley brothers to be extremely interesting. As I've started to reread the books, this discussion has been in my mind. So, just a few minutes ago, when I was reading through part of GOF, I began to think a bit about the way Percy handles teasing versus the way Neville handles it. Granted, it's not a great analogy because Neville isn't a part of the Weasley family, but he's a kid who doesn't have much self esteem, is often teased, and has had some really hard knocks in his life. In chapter twenty one (The House-Elf Liberation Front), the twins give Neville a canary custard cream. Poor Neville turns into a canary. Here's the scene: -- Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning into a large canary. "Oh - sorry, Neville!" Fred shouted over all the laughter. "I forgot - it *was* the custard creams we hexted -" Within a minute, however, Neville had molted, and once his feathers had fallen off, he reappeared looking entirely normal. He even joined in laughing. (US ed., 367) -- Given our previous discussions, particularly Del's insights about teasing, I read this scene in a very different light. I think the first time I read it, I probably laughed at the image of Neville as a canary. But this time, I thought, poor Neville! His parents have been tortured, he's always the butt of the joke, and now he's a canary. But, I was also struck by Neville's laugh. I don't think this makes Fred and George's thoughtless, attention-getting antics any better; but I certainly love Neville all the more for the way he's handled the situation. If Percy had been able to laugh at his own embarrassing situations, even just once, I'd like Percy a bit more, too. And I think this is exactly what JKR intends for me to feel. Whatever we may think about Percy and his future role in the series, JKR has written him in such a way that, for the most part, we - like Harry - are easily annoyed by him. Sure, we can analyze the scenes, applying family dynamics and psychology to them, but probably, most of us, upon first reading the Percy scenes, have the urge to roll our eyes. In many ways, it seems to me that Percy should have the self confidence to laugh at himself a bit more. Unlike Neville, he did grow up with parents who have praised him (we see Neville's Gran berating him for his forgetfulness, etc.); also unlike Neville, he's been recognized as a great student (Percy was prefect then headboy, and probably the top of his class in every course; Neville is the laughing stock of Snape's potion class, probably mediocre in most of his other classes, only doing well in Herbology). But, Percy can't laugh. I think this must have something to do with the fact that Fred and George are his own brothers ... that Percy needs their approval more than he would a peer's. But if I could somehow use a time turner and speak to Percy when he was a bit younger, I would have begged him to try laughing, just once, when the twins poked fun at him. Not only would he have been stronger for it, but the twins proabably would have stopped picking on him because they wouldn't have gotten the reaction they wanted. So, Percy may be a "victim" when it comes to Fred and George, but he can't (or won't) use his embarrassing, sometimes painful, experiences to make him a stronger person. Neville also needs to learn how to turn himself from a victim to a survivor (particularly in Snape's class), but I think he's got the right idea when he laughs at himself in genuinely silly situations like the canary scene. Given that this comparison is based on one tiny scene from GOF - and a scene that only applies to Neville, not Percy - I'm sure this not the strongest comparison in the world. But I thought I'd offer it up, nonetheless. At the very least, it could raise the question of why JKR wants us to like certain characters over others ... and I really do believe that in the end, she wants us to admire Neville (a butt of many jokes) more than Percy (also the butt of jokes). Sophierom From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 04:44:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:44:21 -0000 Subject: thoughts about broomsticks and potions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89280 Nellie wrote: > I wonder, though, could a Muggle or a Squib brew magical potions? It > doesn't seem to require either wands or incantations - just following > the recipe. Maybe that's why Snape doesn't like teaching it in spite > of his being so good at it - because he knows that it doesn't require > specifically magical abilities, and even a Muggle could do it, and he > probably doesn't think much of Muggles. Just a thought. I have a pretty good idea what would happen if you or I managed to obtain a cauldron and the proper ingredients (say stewed slugs and crocodile hearts) and mixed them in the proper order and proportions over a fire of exactly the right temperature for exactly the right amount of time--a smelly mess. The potions have magical powers just as the wands do, and IMO, only a wizard can brew them. In some cases (the e.g., the wolfsbane potion) only a highly skilled wizard like Snape can get it right. Otherwise, Lupin would undoubtedly prepare his own potions. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 05:17:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:17:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89281 > Neri wrote: > There seems to be nothing unusual about the use of DD's clock. > The 12 hands and planets business could be just some magic atmosphere > in the first chapter of the first book. There *are* some innocent, > plain details in the books. Well, back to the drawing board... Not to mention that the twelve planets probably stand for the twelve hours in a day. I can't see Dumbledore with a modern wristwatch (in fact I'm surprised that the kids seem to have them), but a pocketwatch with planets for hands suits him. He also wears high-heeled buckled boots, or so we're told is SS/PS. Maybe they enable him to apparate out of Hogwarts despite the spells that are supposed to prevent apparation, but I really doubt it. Then again, I'm also a time-travel skeptic. I think there's a better reason than DD=Ron for Dumbledore's supposed near-omniscience--great intelligence and the wisdom acquired from 150 years of living, not to mention some skill (we don't know how much) as a Legilmens. He's not perfect and I wouldn't want him to be, but he's the greatest wizard of the age and there's no need for time travel to account for his greatness. Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 05:20:14 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:20:14 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rayheuer3 at a... wrote: > > BrwNeil at a... writes: > > > Ron joked in OotP that Gryffindor had as much chance of winning > the > > > Quidditch Cup as his dad did of becoming Minister of Magic. > > > Gryffindor did in fact win the Quidditch Cup. Could the poor, > > > honest, Muggle loving Arthur have a political future ahead of > him? > The next Minister will likely come from within the Ministry, not > Hogwarts. There are several other possibilities, all of whom are > already affiliated with the Ministry: Susan Bones, Kingsley > Shacklebolt, Elphias Doge, Emmaline Vance, the dimininitive Dedalus > Diggle or the unjustly-imprisoned Sturgis Podmore. And doesn't > Dolores Umbridge still retain the title of Senior Undersecretary? > > - CMC Bookworm: I suggested (many months ago now) that Malfoy would be out of Azkaban soon and would stage a coup to take over the Ministry. In keeping with Ron's joking prediction, his father will be appointed Minister as the person most likely to help restore calm after Malfoy is defeated - probably late in book 7. Any takers pro or con? Ravenclaw Bookworm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 05:22:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:22:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89283 Rachel wrote: I for one think there's more to come with time travel in the > book. Dumbledore is ALWAYS one step ahead of everyone and never > caught off guard or surprised. > Maybe, being an occlumens like Snape, he just conceals his surprise. At any rate, he didn't know that Peter Pettigrew was alive. He thought, along with everyone else, that Sirius Black was a murderer. Had he known, he could have sent the dementors packing and saved Harry from a nasty fifty-foot fall. Carol From EnsTren at aol.com Wed Jan 21 05:41:10 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:41:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perfume vs. Book & Unusual Love Potions Message-ID: <126.392fbd54.2d3f6af6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89284 In a message dated 1/20/2004 11:59:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lolatsukino at aol.com writes: Kelly (de-lurking): I don't mean to pick apart your post, Nemi, but in PoA it was said that Mrs. Weasley told Hermione and Ginny about a love potion she made as a young girl. It never said that she concocted it for the purpose of attracting her husband. Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't Rita Skeeter say in one of her articles that love potions were illegal? Kelly, My bad, but then I'm not a L.O.O.N. And since when do we trust Rita Skeeter? Nemi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 05:53:47 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:53:47 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > I've really found this discussion of the Weasley brothers to be > extremely interesting. As I've started to reread the books, this > discussion has been in my mind. > > So, just a few minutes ago, when I was reading through part of GOF, > I began to think a bit about the way Percy handles teasing versus > the way Neville handles it. Granted, it's not a great analogy > because Neville isn't a part of the Weasley family, but he's a kid > who doesn't have much self esteem, is often teased, and has had some > really hard knocks in his life. > > In chapter twenty one (The House-Elf Liberation Front), the twins > give Neville a canary custard cream. Poor Neville turns into a > canary. Here's the scene: > But, I was also struck by Neville's laugh. I don't think this makes > Fred and George's thoughtless, attention-getting antics any better; > but I certainly love Neville all the more for the way he's handled > the situation. If Percy had been able to laugh at his own > embarrassing situations, even just once, I'd like Percy a bit more, too. > In many ways, it seems to me that Percy should have the self > confidence to laugh at himself a bit more. Not only would he have been stronger > for it, but the twins proabably would have stopped picking on him > because they wouldn't have gotten the reaction they wanted. > Neville also needs to learn how to turn himself from a victim to a survivor (particularly in Snape's class), but I think he's got the right idea when he laughs at himself in genuinely silly situations like the canary scene. > > Given that this comparison is based on one tiny scene from GOF - and > a scene that only applies to Neville, not Percy - I'm sure this not > the strongest comparison in the world. But I thought I'd offer it > up, nonetheless. At the very least, it could raise the question of > why JKR wants us to like certain characters over others ... and I > really do believe that in the end, she wants us to admire Neville (a > butt of many jokes) more than Percy (also the butt of jokes). Bookworm: Sophie, this was a great discussion of Percy's personalily. I had to snip a bunch of good points, but wanted to focus on the scene you quoted. Can you imagine Percy in that scene? Instead of laughing, he would have stormed out in anger. IMO, the similarities between Pency and Ron are superficial. I find it very telling that Percy is never seen with a friend. The twins are seem to have a lot of friends, and Ron is friendly with all the other Gryffindor boys, not jut Harry. Percy is always alone. (Not counting Penelope, of whom we know nothing - and that makes me wonder too.) Percy reminds me of a girl I went to college with. She was a 40- something woman in a 20-year old body. She got along well with her roommate, but other than that was a loner. Even when she went out to dinner with her husband (then boyfriend) they dressed and acted like they were our parents' age instead of barely past teen years. It's easy to picture Percy in Fudge's green derby (figuratively) 20 years from now - he is so much a younger copy of Fudge. He just isn't like anyone else in his family. Neither is Ron or Ginny. In fact, I think Ginny may be the most ambitious of the younger Weasley, but others don't mind because she is personable. She certainly has the strength to go for what she wants, and can work around others to get it. Think of her using the twins' brooms to teach herself quidditch. Ravenclaw Bookworm From helen at odegard.com Wed Jan 21 05:59:57 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:59:57 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's watch (was time travel is dangerous) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3dfe3$cce66f90$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89286 >From Carol: Maybe, being an occlumens like Snape, he just conceals his surprise. At any rate, he didn't know that Peter Pettigrew was alive. He thought, along with everyone else, that Sirius Black was a murderer. Had he known, he could have sent the dementors packing and saved Harry from a nasty fifty-foot fall. Carol >From Helen: JK Rowling: I don't want to say too much but Dumbledore is a very wise man who knows that Harry is going to have to learn a few hard lessons to prepare him for what may be coming in his life. He allows Harry to get into what he wouldn't allow another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to confront things he'd rather protect him from. As people who've read the Order of The Phoenix will know; Dumbledore has had to step back from Harry to teach him some of life's harder lessons. The thing is though... if Dumbledore is a Legilimens, he had to have known that Peter was the traitor way back when. Whether or not he is Ron, he knew anyway. As for the watch... There is a room in the Department of mysteries that holds a three dimensional map of the solar system. Perhaps that controls a time travel device, and you move the planets around to the position they need to be in to get to the point in time you desire. Helen From barbara.jo at juno.com Wed Jan 21 03:54:04 2004 From: barbara.jo at juno.com (Barbara Dunlap) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:54:04 -0000 Subject: Harry using the Cruciatus Curse (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89287 Del: I remember being quite disturbed when I read that scene, because it was such a proof that Harry had no control over his emotions. He's angry, he's got a knife, he tries to use it, period. I find it quite scary that the WW would put so much hope in someone who could so easily slip over to the Dark Side. Not to mention that he doesn't hold many regrets for attemping to use an Unforgivable Curse. How can he defeat LV if he uses the same weapons as he does ? ps : does anyone else find the parallel between Harry's anger at the MoM and his attempt to hurt Bellatrix, and Anakin's anger after the death of his mother and his murderous revenge, disturbing ? We do know that this mass murder is the single act that definitely precipitated Anakin's fall to the Dark Side after all... Barbara: As I read your post, I was also reminded of Star Wars. I am still trying to figure out if Harry is more of an Anakin or a Luke. Anakin gave into the rage and killed the entire tribe of sandpeople. I don't know if Harry trying to torture Bellatrix is exactly the same thing. I see it more of how Luke acted. He saw Vader kill Obi Wan (almost like a godfather, you might say) and then fought Vader. And, in Return of the Jedi, he chose to use his lightsaber against Vader when tempted by the Emperor. Harry is taunted year in and year out by Voldemort and his followers. Finally, he has had enough and "strikes out with the hate in him" (or whatever the Emperor says in Return of the Jedi). However in the end, Vader turns on the Emperor and saves Luke. It's a good ending, but I hope JKR has something else in store for us. I'd hate to read: "Harry turns to the crumpled body of Lord Voldemort. He reaches down and pulls of his mask to reveal James Potter . . ." Just the ramblings of an unashamed Star Wars and HP fan. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 21 04:10:16 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:10:16 -0000 Subject: Lost wands and Sirius's motorcycle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89288 Carol wrote: Another point relating to Sirius and objects that seem to just disappear--there's an inconsistency in Hagrid's story regarding the motorcycle. In SS (Am. ed.) he says that "young Sirius Black lent it to [him]" (14) and that he'll "be takin' Sirius his bike back" (16), but in PoA he says that Sirius gave it to him because he (Sirius) wouldn't be needing it any more: "Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there [Privet Drive]. 'I won't need it anymore,' he says" (PoA 207, Am. ed.). A few lines later, Hagrid says, "He loved that motorbike, what was he givin' it ter me for?" (same page). The bike was "borrowed" (SS 14) but now (PoA) it's a gift? Has Hagrid's perception of Sirius as a "murderin' traitor" distorted his memory? Or (dare I suggest this?) did JKR forget to check the previous conversation before writing the second one? Sawsan here: I think what might have happened is actually both of Hagrid's recollections. Here's why. I know that usually if someone gives me something, (ie lends me a hat or dress or something) because I needed it for some reason or other, and they did not need it anymore(ie it didnt fit, it wasnt what they wanted, etc), I usually use it but try to return it anyway, because I would not want to take the gift right away,as maybe the person giving it to me was just being nice, etc. I would try to give it back to them and if they insisted on me keeping it, then I might do so. In the case of Sirius and Hagrid, imagine Hagrid being in a hurry to get Harry to the right place, and Sirius, who was once very happy and fun loving, has not only suffered the loss of his best friend, but also knew it was his fault for what had happened. He would be very depressed, and probably didn't care about his own safety nor his possessions. Sirius probably says take it, and Hagrid thought he meant that he loaned it to him, then when he goes to return it, Sirius was like I dont need it anymore so just keep it. Even if it was his favorite bike or whatever, it definitely didnt matter because he lost a whole lot more that night, and it was his fault that he did. Sawsan, who is wondering if JKR reads through these posts and laughs at our thoughts and theories. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 21 04:32:18 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:32:18 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89289 I understand that Love is very popular theory, but JKR has already said that Love is close, but not exactly what is locked in the DoM. I honestly like the many different theories floating around now, like Life, Love, and Truth, etc, and I think that they all are very possible. Each one has its own way of fitting into the description of what is in the locked room, but then again, they also have certain points that dont seem to fit. I wish I had that interview's link, but I cant find it anymore. Whatever it is, it has to be something that is so easy it stumps us all; or maybe not. I honestly think love is too easy, and at the same time, I don't see that much love in Harry's life anyway. I mean yeah his mom saved him, and yeah he loves his friends and Sirius and such, but think of how much lack of love he has had. I mean, he lived with the Dursleys and even said that they dont love him at the end of OotP. He has his close friends and such, and they all love him, but he has suffered quite alot, don't you think? He has lived the majority of his life with no friends and no loving family, he goes to school and for the most part has been disliked or hated for some reason or another. Yes his mother saved his life and her sacrifice lives on in him, but even in the mirror of erised, he longed for his parents' love, because he never got it directly and on a daily basis. Harry finally has friends that are wonderful, and a few adults who care very much for him, but love is a new thing for Harry, its not something that he has had all the time nor exhibits very well. He saves his friends and such as much as possible, but thats just the way he is. He is a great wizard, a loyal and loving friend, but I don't see the love thing as something he has had in him all along; he has had a miserable life, similarly to Voldi, so I don't see that being something Voldi could not stand. THe difference, as DD pointed out at the end of CoS, is that Harry chooses to lead a good life and to be a good guy, when Tommy Boy Riddle does not. Can't wait to find out what it is though :P I hope Book 6 is not too long of a wait. Sawsan, who hopes that her midnight writing is comprehensible. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Wed Jan 21 04:55:19 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:55:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: Perfume vs. Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89290 I know that this is not the place for shipping, but I think in this post its along the lines of that. First off, I almost feel that Harry will end up with someone we dont expect, like Susan Bones or something. But hopefully not :P (though she is probably a sweet girl). I don't think that any of the three are quite ready for real love right now. Most probably, it's all a teenage puppy love/ hormonal thing with Ron. I don't see much attraction towards Ron from Hermione, but I don't see her really attracted to anyone right now. Harry had his go with his dream girl Cho, but that was doomed from the start, and I was glad it was over by book 5. In all of the books, Harry and Hermione, have a special respect and closeness; Ron is usually pretty sarcastic and can be mean, even if it is not intentionally. I don't see Hermione going for that really. Hermione likes things that she can understand, and study even, and Harry seems the type. They understand each other more than Hermione and Ron have so far. I mean, usually adults say that they want to marry someone who can be their best friend, so Hermione would be a great person for either Harry or Ron, but I think for Hermione, she would want someone who has something to say to her or move her if you will, but I don't think Ron can give her that. He's a great guy, but he's not the perfect guy for Hermione. Harry has too much to deal with to worry about that now anyway; so I am not sure if even Harry and Hermione can get something going. The gift that Harry gives Hermione shows that he understands her; which is probably a plus in Hermione's book, so I see that as a possibility. Besides, Hermi and Ron argue too much and get angry at each other quite often, so who would want to be in that kind of relationship? As friends, its easier to reconcile, but as a couple, it could ruin everything altogether. Sawsan From lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 04:59:14 2004 From: lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com (lovegrrl) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:59:14 -0000 Subject: Fawkes References: <1074559665.11960.29214.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89291 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dalriada" wrote: > *According to the Lexicon, Fawkes came with the office when > Dumbledore became Headmaster. lizvega2: Actually I'd like to see canon supporting that Fawkes came with the office. In COS, (Sorry, no reference I'm at work) Harry enters Tom Riddle's 'memory' and finds himself in the Headmaster's office. He makes a note of the fact that this office does not belong to Dumbledore yet, and he specifically says there's no Fawkes there. lovegrrl now: If my memory serves me correctly, what the Lexicon actually says is that Fawkes is a pet of Dumbledore's. I'm sure it also talks about the scene lizvega2 mentions in COS and thus we can derive that althought it is not certain that Fawkes is Dumbledore's (I have a feeling that Fawkes doesn't belong to Dumbledore in the typical sense, anyway) we can certainly assume this is what JK means to imply. From lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 05:33:24 2004 From: lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com (lovegrrl) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:33:24 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? References: <1074559665.11960.29214.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89292 Sylvia said: I know I am going to get slaughtered for saying this (and I have enjoyed the discussion as much as anyone) but are we all forgetting that when push comes to shove, these are children's books - wonderful for adults to read and speculate about, but nevertheless originally written for children. Thinking about the sub-teen Potter obsessives in my own family and their friends, I wonder how many of them are going to understand the concepts that have been mooted here. Truth, Life, etc. are fascinating ideas for adult speculation, but I honestly think the only one a ten-year-old would readily grasp is the idea of Love. Even the youngest of her readers will have experienced the power of Love. So, much as I would like it to be Truth, I think afterall it will be simply Love. lovegrrl replies: Even though I agree with Sylvia that it will be Love behind the locked door, I have to disagree with her reasons for reaching this conclusion. Children's books they may be, but they deal with very adult issues. I remember remarking to a friend of mine after I had read SS/PS (and only this one) that if all that had happend to Harry in his childhood happened to a real kid then he'd be completely messed up for his life and I'm not even talking about what happens when he gets to Hogwarts. These books are growing up with Harry, a fact extremely evident in OoP, and to say that children wouldn't understand the concepts (however elaborate they may be) is somewhat naive. Children understand a lot more than we give them credit for, a fact I think JK understands. There have already been some quite complex concepts and plots presented and I don't see any of the children getting lost by them, in fact they probably understand them better then we do. From lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 05:40:51 2004 From: lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com (lovegrrl) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:40:51 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support References: <1074559665.11960.29214.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89293 Herman wrote: > I was reading OOTP again and read this paragraph... on page 658. > Harry after he declares that he wants to talk to Sirius and > George/Fred give an idea. > > "What do you think about this?" Hermione demanded of Ron, and > Harry was reminded irresistibly of Mrs Weasley appealing to her > husband during Harry's first dinner in Grimmauld Place. > > This added with all the little bits of evidence added before > confirms in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and Ron. Meri wrote: > That's an excellent point that I didn't notice. I also loved that > Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just knew he was going to > be a sweet boyfriend! lovegrrl puts in her two cents: I have to say that I didn't feel comfortably applying ships to the trio when they were younger (as was done in the CoS movie! grrr, urhn....) even though they had crushes. I never even liked reading fics that did this until 'After the End' over at SugarQuill.net, but I have to say it seems really evident that this is where these two are going and I couldn't be more delighted. All we have to do now is defeat ol' Voldy and find Harry a suitable love interest (coughs,ginny,coughs). lovegrrl, who hopes everyone will take her advice and look up After the End! From lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 05:46:04 2004 From: lovegrrl_in at hotmail.com (lovegrrl) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:46:04 -0000 Subject: Underage magic & the Unforgivable Curses References: <1074559665.11960.29214.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89294 Abbet askes: If the MoM can track underage magic, why can't they track the Unforgivable Curses? lovegrrl ponders: There are only two explanations I can find for this. One is the sheer amount of work it would take for the Ministry to monitor every wizards and witches wand. They keep tract on underage magic because it is against the law for them to use magic outside school but what reason would they have to monitor *everyone* else. Also, think about it... it would be like the government tapping into your phones lines and checking your mail. Even if you are completely innocent and law abiding you wouldn't willingly hand your freedom over to a faceless government organisation. Would you? From derek at rhinobunny.com Wed Jan 21 05:55:08 2004 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:55:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040120215309.026cc450@mail.rhinobunny.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89295 scoutmom21113 wrote: >In >keeping with Ron's joking prediction, his father will be appointed >Minister as the person most likely to help restore calm after Malfoy >is defeated - probably late in book 7. Any takers pro or con? Derek: I predict that by the end of book 7, the WW's policy of remaining separate from the Muggle World will end (either because it's no longer practical or for some other reason), and that Arthur Weasley will become Minister of Magic because he's viewed as the best person to guide the WW into co-existence with Muggles... - Derek From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Wed Jan 21 06:52:36 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:52:36 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Book 6 / Movies / Spamming the Polls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89296 Greetings from Hexquarters! Just a quick reminder that off-topic posts (entertaining as they are!) are not permitted on this list. We require that posts to the main list make a canon point and discuss the words or works of JKR. We would like the discussion of Book 6 rumors to move to the HPFGU-OTChatter list (where it's already underway). OTChatter is a fun and friendly place where people enjoy talking about all sorts of things, and it can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter By the same token, discussions about the movies or casting should go to our sister movie group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie And please, any further comments about the recent polls being spammed should be made on the Feedback group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ For further information, check out our posting guidelines at www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin/ Thanks! Kelley Elf for the list admin team From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 21 07:47:38 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:47:38 -0000 Subject: Lost wands and Sirius's motorcycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > That's what I thought until I reread the conversation in which > McGonagall, Flitwick, Hagrid, Fudge, and Madam Rosmerta discuss the > supposed murder of Peter Pettigrew. According to Fudge, Peter left "a > heap of bloodstained robes" (PoA 208, Am. ed.)in the street along with > his finger and a few other tiny bits of himself (maybe pieces of his > ear since one of Scabbers's ears looks chewed up). It doesn't look as > if he had any pocket to put the wand in. And where did he get the > clothes he's wearing when he reemerges as a man near the end of PoA? Geoff: Just in passing, the finger isn't specifically mentioned so perhaps that constitutes the fragments. The other point was that,presumably, he was wearing other clothes under his robes, so he could easily have put the wand away before he transformed (working on the suggstion that if the wand is in your hand, it doesn't go with you). From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 21 07:54:54 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:54:54 -0000 Subject: Questions about PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, abbet69 at y... wrote: Abbet: 2. At the end of the book, does DD give Harry the Elixir of life to > save his life? > > "Something gold was glinting just above him. The Snitch! He tried > to > catch it but his arms were too heavy. > He blinked. It wasn't the Snitch at all. It was a pair of glasses. > How strange." > > The gold that was glinting just above him was DD using the PS/SS > to make the Elixir of Life to save Harry. He doesn't just blink, > he's really out 3 days, just feels like a blink, that's why it feels > strange to see a pair of glasses when he was sure it was something > gold. Geoff: My reading has always been that the gold glint was Dumbledore's glasses. I presume that, if Harry is just coming round after three days, and Elixir treatment had been used, it would have been used much earlier. Your suggestion also doesn't fit with: "As for the Stone, it has been destroyed" - Dumledore speaking. (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.213 UK edition) From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Wed Jan 21 08:41:50 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:41:50 -0000 Subject: Prophecy Under Fidelius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89299 It's past 2:30 AM here but this thought won't leave me alone. I know, it's another unresolvable Fidelius question, but why could Dumbledore have not merely kept the secret of the prophecy's contents under the Fidelius Charm? It should then (somehow) make the recording sphere a moot point that could not reveal the contents. It should have also allowed Dumbledore (he wouldn't have to have looked at him, writing it down would work) to communicate the details to Harry without fear of Harry being able to inadvertablty "leak" the contents to Volde. (At least I believe that was one reason to keep him somewhat insulated from sensitive secrets). Know what I think? I think that onn the March 4th chat with JKR, someone should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm! ~~Arya~~ (who is hopefully now going back to bed) From abbet69 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 09:00:59 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:00:59 -0000 Subject: Questions about Pensieves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89300 If you remove a memory and put it into a Pensieve, afterwards you shouldn't be able to know what that memory was about until you either look into the pensieve or put the memory back into your head. Otherwise what's the point in Snape taking out his worst memory if he could still remember what it was about. That means when Snape grabbed Harry and threw him out of his office, Snape didn't know what the memory was of, just that he didn't want Harry to see it. That also means that when Snape puts the his worst memory back into his head, it would almost be like reliving it for the first time. That would really suck to have to relive your worst memory once a week for a kid you despise. I don't think I've felt more sorry for Snape if this is the case. This also means that when DD uses the pensieve with Harry that DD was just making a copy of his memory because he knew what was happening in the pensieve. So I guess this means you can either copy a memory and put it into a pensieve or you can put the whole memory in one. Can person A put person B's memory from a pensieve into his own head? If this doesn't make any sense it's because I'm up way too late. Abbet From nanstey at iastate.edu Wed Jan 21 09:11:57 2004 From: nanstey at iastate.edu (nanstey2001) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:11:57 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89301 Herman wrote: > > This added with all the little bits of evidence added before > > confirms in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and Ron. Meri wrote: > That's an excellent point that I didn't notice. I also loved that > Ron gave Hermione perfume for Christmas. I just knew he was going to > be a sweet boyfriend! Not only the little bits we see, but think of all the time that Ron and Hermione spend outside of Harry's company - they've been getting to know each other quite well, and spent a lot of time together - just the two of them. :) "nanstey2001" From nanstey at iastate.edu Wed Jan 21 08:56:46 2004 From: nanstey at iastate.edu (nanstey2001) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:56:46 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89302 > Bookworm: > Can you imagine Percy in that scene? Instead of laughing, > he would have stormed out in anger. IMO, the similarities between > Pency and Ron are superficial. I find it very telling that Percy is > never seen with a friend. The twins are seem to have a lot of > friends, and Ron is friendly with all the other Gryffindor boys, not > jut Harry. Percy is always alone. (Not counting Penelope, of whom > we know nothing - and that makes me wonder too.) > It's easy to picture Percy in Fudge's green derby (figuratively) 20 > years from now - he is so much a younger copy of Fudge. He just > isn't like anyone else in his family. >>> I couldn't help but notice this thread, being the eldest of three brothers, and often being the butt of their jokes. I have to say that I think Percy is someone who hides behind the rules, and up to Book 4, it had served him well. He has always managed to get by, until he finds himself in a situation that demands thinking outside the box - something he has proven, time and time again, he is either unwilling or unable to do. He likely feels secretly powerless, thus using the rules and his obedience to them as his shield. That's why he couldn't handle it when his dad (whom he always calls "Father" - when calling him Dad actully seems more respectful, in a way) doesn't automatically approve of his promotion. He can't handle a fault in his perfect little world he's made for himself, so he estranges himself. Come to think of it, we've never seen him before being made a prefect, have we? Or heard much of his life before that time. Was he a loner, an outcast, with no authority, before Dumbledore chose him as prefect? All that is certain is, he's going one fo two ways - either back to his family, greatly humbled, or his pride will get the best of him in some way. Either way, I think he'll have a definite role of signifigance - Otherwise, wouldn't Rowling have mentioned him at the end of Book 5? "nanstey2001" From joi_foley at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 07:13:42 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:13:42 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic (Re: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89303 "lizvega2" wrote: > (beginning snipped) Which leads me to believe that the MOM doesn't know squat about the person/creature casting the spells, nor do they know how they're being cast in the first place. They just know that magic is being used. > My theory has flaws, of course, because the Weasley's use magic to connect the Dursley's fireplace to the floo network. NO letter on that one, but, perhaps Arthur had permission. Don't know. And, that pesky patronous charm in OOP, doesn't help my cause either. Harry used his wand, and they knew, but did they really know it was Harry, or is it like Amelia Bones said at Harry's trial, "That situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events" (OOP P. 143) They just use magical radar for Little Whinging? And, if something happens, well then it must be Harry doing it. > Notice, she uses the word 'situation', I think that's a funny way of refering to a geographic location. Hmmmmm joi: The Underage Magic Restriction thing has so many holes, and I'm one of those readers who just takes the holes (where DID Hagrid go? I just shrug it off, even though it is interesting). However, I think this has become such an important plot device, I can no longer ignore the holes. So I've come up with a few ideas: 1.) We know that Harry has been more closely monitored than others, for obvious reasons. And I think that quote from OotP is a key, and you're picking up on it perfectly, lizvega2. The quote seems to push the idea that it's not a certain witch or wizard that the MoM monitors, it's the area (and probably pretty specific areas). And I think how closely monitored the area is is based on various factors that have been mentioned, things like the presence of non-magical people, the power of the magic done, etc. This makes it seem as if the Ministry doesn't know squat about the actual cause of the magic, just that it was produced in a highly monitored place. 2.) The Restriction is in place ONLY for currently enrolled Hogwarts students. I think that children who are not yet enrolled in Hogwarts can practice magic because they aren't seen as a threat just yet. I don't think it's a surprise that the age that students are admitted to Hogwarts is also the beginning of adolescence, which we all can recognize as a significant turning pt in any child's life. Perhaps adolescence+puberty is also the time when magical people, along with growing taller, become more powerful. And then, by the time they're out of school, they are considered to be trained, and no longer need to be watched. The Restriction is then in place so students don't screw anything up, as they're in the middle of their training. But if there is someone supervising them in using magic on the holidays, they are less likely to cause trouble. An example would be something like driving lessons in the US- most states require that a person learning to drive get a permit and take actual lessons, and during this period, they aren't allowed to drive without a licensed person. (If I haven't gotten totally off-track and nonsensical) applying these two things to the Restriction, it's more OK for the Weasleys to practice magic in their home because their area is not closely monitored (no muggles), and because there are two respectable and trained magical people in the home. In Harry's case, the area is being monitored because of the threat of LV, with the extra added bonus of being high-muggle-traffic, and there is no one in the immediate area who could be supervising Harry's magic. In a case like Hermione's, she could have been practicing magic previous to Hogwarts, which, according to this idea, wouldn't count until she actually got there. Does that make sense? That's how I've let my mind rationalize the holes in this particular part of the series. Oh, a final note: I don't have the book on me, but didn't Arthur Weasley say, when he came through the floo to the Dursleys', that he'd gotten permission to link their fireplace just this one time so he could get Harry? The Dursleys' fireplace wouldn't have been in the network, anyways, and something would have had to be done to connect it, so I'm guessing that's why no notice was sent then. :) thanks, joi. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 21 10:19:40 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:19:40 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Now me: > But Kneasy, it's made clear in the books that *no one* takes offense > at the word "muggle"--it's intended to be an IDENTIFIER, sort of > like "human" or "witch". But "mudblood" in canon is clearly shown to > be a PEJORATIVE. Thus, there's no reason to complain about **the > term** "muggle"; by JKR's design it's not packed w/ connotation. > > I would also ask the following: do the Death Eaters not go after > muggles *selectively*, most likely those who've borne a witch or > wizard, thereby "tainting" the wizarding world? > No one take offence at the term Muggle? Hmmm. Now give me a reference where a Muggle has been called that to their face, please. Even better, where they understand the implication of the term and where that places them in relation to wizards. The Muggles are the 'out' group. The only Muggles to receiving page time so far are the Dursleys (cast as foster parents from hell), the Grangers (patronised by Arthur), Frank Bryce (zapped by Voldy) and that poor bloody farmer at the QWC (mind manipulation and torture). Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with that, I think it's great fun. But they are "the great unwashed" so far as the WW is concerned; to be used, abused and dismissed. If I thought the books were to be taken seriously, I'd be feeling quite miffed and planning a re-enactment of the Salem pyrotechnics. As to your second point, I don't think so. There's no indication that Mr Roberts (that farmer) has any previous connection with the WW. Kneasy From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 21 11:11:59 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:11:59 -0000 Subject: Questions about Pensieves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89305 abbet wrote: If you remove a memory and put it into a Pensieve, afterwards you shouldn't be able to know what that memory was about until you either look into the pensieve or put the memory back into your head. Otherwise what's the point in Snape taking out his worst memory if he could still remember what it was about. That means when Snape grabbed Harry and threw him out of his office, Snape didn't know what the memory was of, just that he didn't want Harry to see it. Berit replies: Just one thing: It sounds logical that once a person has put his thought into the pensieve, he is unable to "think it" in his head till he has replaced it again. But I think you're wrong that Snape didn't know what memory Harry had seen, on the simple grounds that Snape himself dived into that particular memory to retrieve Harry. I'm sure he noticed which memory he and Harry was in... Snape is usually a very acute observer :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From Silencer at iprimus.com.au Wed Jan 21 10:16:27 2004 From: Silencer at iprimus.com.au (silencer) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:16:27 +0800 Subject: The Mirror of Erised References: Message-ID: <015701c3e007$a7673e60$356932d2@your6xiyzrxcn6> No: HPFGUIDX 89306 Hey everyone. Got a question. What happened to the Mirror of Erised at the end of PS? Also what do you think other characters in this story would see if they looked into the mirror? Once again I fade into the shadows Silencer From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Wed Jan 21 12:08:43 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:08:43 -0600 Subject: What's behind the locked door? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89307 You know, a though just struck me as I was here, getting ready to take part pallets, on the conversation we've all been having about what's really behind that door...and a few things stuck out from various posts... 1) Rowling has said 'Love' is close, but not the answer... 2) Whatever it is, it can likely destroy Voldy 3) Although all the answers have good support, none of them QUITE fit.... Which got me to thinking....what if the answer was both more simple (and yet more complex) then 'Love', 'Truth', 'Life', and so forth. What if, really, what's in that room is actually all of these things--all the things that make up a "good" or "Light-side" or even just 'well-balanced' human being? What if that's it? And perhaps here's some support for this idea...think about it and see if you guys can agree...(or not) Hogwarts is set up into four houses, each of which have certain traits, both light and dark, that make them stand out. On the positive side, Gryffindors are 'brave' and 'true' Hufflepuffs are 'kind' and 'hardworking' Ravenclaws are 'Clever' and "scholarly' Slytherin are 'driven' and 'ambitious' They of course have negatives sides too (which could easily be represented by Tom/Voldy and all the things he's done to become more powerful and cheat Death), but let's just look at this for a bit... Now, a well-balanced person has each of these 'good' traits to some degree... And hasn't the Hat hinted that the houses themselves need to start working together (IE, start acting in balance with each other), if they are to survive what's coming? Could this be a metaphor for what's in that room, and what could be done IF the students 'get it' in time, and work together...in balance with each other? Anyhow, just a thought...do with it what you will.... Anne **Crawling back into her hole with the freshly brewed coffee....** From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 21 12:30:20 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:30:20 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "suehpfan" wrote: Frost: > > snip> > I like him, but not because he's a great perfect person. I like > > him because his struggles remind me of my own, and that really lets > > me feel his humanity. Sue: > I was going to pull myself out of this argument but for the sake of > making my perspective clear, I will post one more time and then > return quietly to lurking. > > My opinion of Harry has never been that he is perfect. No one is. I > only feel that the perspective that he is inately evil is off the > mark. He used an unforgivable curse, bad choice, not a bad person. > He also saved the life of Peter Pettigrew when he could have allowed > him to be murdered. It would have been SO easy for a cold person to > allow that to happen, who would Harry have seen as more deserving of > the death penalty? It seems to me then that as it would be biased > and one sided to see Harry as perfect in every way, it is equally as > one sided to see him as evil. He is HUMAN and he is YOUNG. Geoff: I have come out in support of Harry on a number of past occasions as not being either evil, ruthless or on the opposite side a perfect Christ figure. The following is part of a comment I originally made in message 78099 which also involved a discussion on belief but summarises my feelings about Harry as a character. "Again, to finish, Dumbledore points out to Harry in COS that what we are is a result of our choices, not our abilities and this again is part of the core of real Christian belief. Harry reminds me so much of myself in many ways when I was at that age, looking for answers, being impatient, not listening to wiser counsels, making a pig's ear of things but I believe that I finally reached decisions which have given me a full and satisfying life because I made the right choices at the right time. I am sure that many contributors to this group will snort and say "Rubbish" because they do not share my view of life - and they have a perfect right to do so. My point is that people who are at the stage of making choices for themselves at crucial moments could do far worse than looking at the advice Harry receives from all directions and the ultimate (and sometimes flawed)choices he makes". From astrid at netspace.net.au Wed Jan 21 13:10:09 2004 From: astrid at netspace.net.au (Astrid Wootton) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:10:09 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Number of students (was Re: Houses and classes) In-Reply-To: <20040120220225.46928.qmail@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89309 On 21/1/04 9:02 AM, "anneli lucas" wrote: > Astrid wrote: > >> >Hogwarts having (I believe) about 280 students but only 4 houses, > > Anneli: > > I'm sure I remember reading/hearing in an interview with JK that there were > about 700 students at Hogwarts - or did I dream that? > > Anneli > > > Astrid replies: > JK said in an interview that there are about 1000 students at Hogwarts. My > belief is that this is a flint. There is a full discussion of the question in > the Lexicon, based on internal evidence drawn from the books, and a most > interesting analysis it is. > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html > > A > > > > > > > ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts > to which you're replying! > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ > * > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > * HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > * > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service > . > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 14:06:35 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:06:35 -0000 Subject: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Naama: > >> In short, Harry tends to dislike with very good reason. All > these > people (other then Snape, maybe) do not *deserve* > compassion. And when I say that they don't deserve > compassion, I mean that *JKR* doesn't see them as deserving > compassion. So, it's hardly fair to blame Harry for this, is it?<< > > Lupin and Sirius aren't setting a good example, are they? Err.. what do you mean? Where? In the Shrieking Shack? > Harry at eleven doesn't have any sympathy to spare for Quirrell. But then, neither do we. I mean, the story is told in such a way that the reader can't really sympathise with Quirrell. He is either a stuttering idiot, or a willing vehicle for Voldemort. How can we blame Harry for lack of sympathy, when it's the author who makes sympathy simply not an option? That's what I've been trying to say, that Harry appears (mostly, he is not a saint) quite as sympathetic and caring as the circumstances call for. > He is barely able to comprehend that Snape, who hates him, > nonetheless cared enough about him to save his life. But on the > verge of sixteen he's discovered that like it or not, he knows > exactly how Snape feels. That's more to do with having actually had access to Snape's memories, than to his age at the time. I think that Harry would have had the same reaction to what he saw in the Pensieve, whether he was 11 or 16. In fact, the sight of his own father tormenting Snape like that would have been even harder for him to process at 11 that at 16. >He's also discovered that he can feel > sorry for Luna even though she annoys him dreadfully, and that, > strangely enough, sympathy for her makes his own grief easier > to bear. > Yes, I think this is a real sign of growth on Harry's part. Up till now, his care and kindness to others came from a kind nature, an instinctual sense of justice. With maturity, the perception of the autonomous reality of others grows. As a kind child, he would have treated Luna decently and protected her if necessary. As a grown up, he can *feel* for her. But I don't think it's fair to see the younger Harry as not compassionate - he was as compassionate as a child could be, I think. Naama From meltowne at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 14:11:46 2004 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:11:46 -0000 Subject: Who, exactly, is Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89311 I know it's a bit of a leap, but what if Dumbledore isn't Ron, but Harry? What if Harry goes back 150 years to live after he defeats Voldemort? Maybe he doesn't want to live in a time & place where everybody knows him, and expects great things of him. He would know what Tom Riddle was before he even became LV, but would be unable to do anything about it - or risk altering his own past. He would know how he would be treated as a young child, but unable to change it. His wisdom and intelligence would still be based on age and experience, just a different childhood than we might expect. Of course, then we have to figure out where his brother came from, if he really is his brother. From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 14:20:08 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:20:08 -0000 Subject: What's behind the locked door? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Campbell, Anne-TMC-Rcvg" wrote: > You know, a though just struck me as I was here, getting ready to take part pallets, on the conversation we've all been having about what's really behind that door...and a few things stuck out from various posts... > > 1) Rowling has said 'Love' is close, but not the answer... > 2) Whatever it is, it can likely destroy Voldy > 3) Although all the answers have good support, none of them QUITE fit.... > > > Which got me to thinking....what if the answer was both more simple (and yet more complex) then 'Love', 'Truth', 'Life', and so forth. > > What if, really, what's in that room is actually all of these things--all the things that make up a "good" or "Light-side" or even just 'well-balanced' human being? What if that's it? > > And perhaps here's some support for this idea...think about it and see if you guys can agree...(or not) I was just reading about the Phoenix in Fantastic Beasts. It said "Phoenix song is magical; it is reputed to increase the courage in the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure" When "Heart" was on the poll I kept thinking (it seems a lot of others did also) what the heck do they mean by heart? Maybe it has something to do with Harry having a pure heart and Voldie having an impure heart. It could also go along with your idea of all things that make a "good" human being, having a pure heart. Just a thought, Diana From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Wed Jan 21 14:20:28 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:20:28 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > I have come out in support of Harry on a number of past occasions as > not being either evil, ruthless or on the opposite side a perfect > Christ figure. > > The following is part of a comment I originally made in message 78099 > which also involved a discussion on belief but summarises my feelings > about Harry as a character. > > "Again, to finish, Dumbledore points out to Harry in COS that what we > are is a result of our choices, not our abilities and this again is > part of the core of real Christian belief. > > Harry reminds me so much of myself in many ways when I was at that > age, looking for answers, being impatient, not listening to wiser > counsels, making a pig's ear of things but I believe that I finally > reached decisions which have given me a full and satisfying life > because I made the right choices at the right time. I am sure that > many contributors to this group will snort and say "Rubbish" because > they do not share my view of life - and they have a perfect right to > do so. My point is that people who are at the stage of making choices > for themselves at crucial moments could do far worse than looking at > the advice Harry receives from all directions and the ultimate (and > sometimes flawed)choices he makes". Oh no, I'll never say "rubish" reading a point of view like yours, because, as I wrote last summer (that's the auto-quotation day...), I consider that JKR's books are companions for our own human journey, and so is Harry. Would so many people discuss about him if he were perfect? If he didn't make mistakes? Probably not. He's here to held out to us a mirror (one more mirror!)in which we can see our human defects and our human qualities. Two Knuts, Amicalement, Iris From SnapesRaven at web.de Wed Jan 21 10:42:18 2004 From: SnapesRaven at web.de (SnapesRaven) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:42:18 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Underage Magic (Re: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions) References: Message-ID: <000001c3e011$6b481da0$544dbfd5@henrike> No: HPFGUIDX 89314 Good morning! joi wrote: (If I haven't gotten totally off-track and nonsensical) applying these two things to the Restriction, it's more OK for the Weasleys to practice magic in their home because their area is not closely monitored (no muggles), and because there are two respectable and trained magical people in the home. In Harry's case, the area is being monitored because of the threat of LV, with the extra added bonus of being high-muggle-traffic, and there is no one in the immediate area who could be supervising Harry's magic. In a case like Hermione's, she could have been practicing magic previous to Hogwarts, which, according to this idea, wouldn't count until she actually got there. You've got a point there, BUT on the other hand I think there wasn't nobody in the immediate area to supervise Harry's use of magic. What about Arabella Figg? Although she doesn't live in the Dursleys' house, she is a neighbor and thus quite close to Harry, even though he doesn't realize that she's a witch before the Dementor attack. Even though she's a squib, she knows how to prevent magically done harm, nd I'm sure she would have - for Harry's own sake. What do you think about that? SnapesRaven [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Wed Jan 21 14:44:53 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:44:53 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040120215309.026cc450@mail.rhinobunny.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89315 derek wrote: and that Arthur Weasley will > become Minister of Magic because he's viewed as the best person to > guide the WW into co-existence with Muggles I think the only Dumbledore is not the minister because he has to watch over Harry as long as he is at Hogwarts and safeguard facilitate his exploits. We know that the contest between Harry and Voldemort won't finish till seventh book.So Dumbledore will be the next minister of magic after the seventh book! In the mean time Fudge will be quite enough. And even if he is removed, Arthur Weasly is too junior to be the next minister, ain't he? spangb From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Jan 21 12:31:11 2004 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:31:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions References: Message-ID: <400E710F.3020200@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89316 lizvega2 wrote: > I just had a thought. The MOM sends Harry letters when he doesn't > use his wand. In COS- The Hover Charm was used, no wand, but Harry > received a notice anyway. In POA the ministry had already modified > Marge's memory by the time Harry stepped off the night bus- they > knew - but again, Harry didn't use his wand. Which leads me to > believe that the MOM doesn't know squat about the person/creature > casting the spells, nor do they know how they're being cast in the > first place. They just know that magic is being used. I've been trying to make this point. Its NOT the wand use, its MAGIC USE in a certain area. Heres how I think it works. A spell is cast on an item that is placed in a child's home OR they enchant the home itself. ANY magic use within a set distance from the point of that enchantment causes a pin in a map of the UK to GLOW BRIGHTLY. The 'pin' being part of the spell or magic item used to detect magic use. Each 'pin' represents the home of a magical child. To save resources, they might only do this with children living in muggle areas. Some people, like the Malfoys, might not be monitored at all. It cannot tell WHO is using the magic, just that magic is being used. ie. Dobby used magic and the MOM simply assumed it was Harry using his wand. If they had checked his wand, they would have found out he never used it that time. The enchantment tied to a pin in a map is a much simpler idea then thinking that the MOM can detect every bit of magic everywhere, all the time. They are not all powerful after all. Jazmyn From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 13:28:06 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:28:06 -0000 Subject: Harry using the Cruciatus Curse (Re: Harry the Auror) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89317 > Del: > I remember being quite disturbed when I read that scene, because it > was such a proof that Harry had no control over his emotions. He's > angry, he's got a knife, he tries to use it, period. I find it quite > scary that the WW would put so much hope in someone who could so > easily slip over to the Dark Side. Not to mention that he doesn't > hold many regrets for attemping to use an Unforgivable Curse. How > can he defeat LV if he uses the same weapons as he does ? Me (Hitomi): This is an arugument that I have been following on this list, and to be perfectly honest, it has absolutely driven me up a wall. And this is why: Harry Potter is one of the most beautiful characters I have ever come across in any form of literature, and I'm an English Lit. student, so I ask you to bear with me on that opinion. Look at that moment from Harry's view, because people love to judge, but they don't empathize enough. Harry's friends are all injured, his father/brother figure has just inexplicably died, he believes it to be his fault, and Sirius' murderer (Sirius' cousin, no less) is getting away. She worships the ground Voldemort walks on, the man responsible for killing Harry's parents and pretty much everything bad that has ever happened to him, not to mention she is also responsible for Neville's parents. This woman is rather evil, to say the least. Harry is in unimaginable pain, Bellatrix goads his feelings for Sirius, and in RIGHTEOUS ANGER, he retaliates in the only way he knows how. He's HUMAN. All humans, at one point or another, want some form of revenge; it can be as simple as wanting someone to be caught in a lie, or something as severe as capital punishment (which I DON'T personally believe in). And most humans have never been faced with this type of situation, I don't care if Harry is only fifteen, I defy a fifty-year-old person to act more mature over the death of a spouse or child in such circumstances. And it was righteous anger, Bellatrix says it herself. Harry, deep down, never wants to cause another human being pain. No matter how much they may deserve it. He doesn't even really want to ever kill Voldemort, he just wants him stopped. But in that emotional state, he wants Bellatrix to feel some form of the pain she has caused him to feel, some form of fairness in all this chaos (RIGHTEOUS ANGER, remember?), but he doesn't TRULY mean it, which is why the curse doesn't actually work. It knocks her off her feet, causes her pain for all of a moment, and then she's up and goading him again. For heavens sake, Harry saved WORMTAIL'S life, Bellatrix is no better. And because of this, Harry is probably ten times the person most of us will ever be. > ps : does anyone else find the parallel between Harry's anger at the > MoM and his attempt to hurt Bellatrix, and Anakin's anger after the > death of his mother and his murderous revenge, disturbing ? We do > know that this mass murder is the single act that definitely > precipitated Anakin's fall to the Dark Side after all... Me (Hitomi): Oh dear, Star Wars references. Anakin is not a good example. Anakin desired power above all else, long before his mother's death. More of a Slytherin type, neh? Besides, Harry would never ever turn on his friends, much less his wife or future children. > Barbara: > As I read your post, I was also reminded of Star Wars. I am still > trying to figure out if Harry is more of an Anakin or a Luke. Anakin > gave into the rage and killed the entire tribe of sandpeople. I > don't know if Harry trying to torture Bellatrix is exactly the same > thing. I see it more of how Luke acted. He saw Vader kill Obi Wan > (almost like a godfather, you might say) and then fought Vader. And, > in Return of the Jedi, he chose to use his lightsaber against Vader > when tempted by the Emperor. Harry is taunted year in and year out > by Voldemort and his followers. Finally, he has had enough > and "strikes out with the hate in him" (or whatever the Emperor says > in Return of the Jedi). However in the end, Vader turns on the > Emperor and saves Luke. Me (Hitomi): More accurate of my feelings towards things, though I still don't think Star Wars is the best example (though I do love the franchise, just not as much as Harry). Luke is the hero, Anakin is the misguided one. Last time I checked, this series was called Harry Potter. He is the hero. And honestly, if I had to place my future, my life in someone's hands, it would be him. And that's precisely what the WW will have to do. Not to mention the fact JKR said Harry would never be tempted by the Dark Arts. And James was, apparently, not half the boy Harry is at fifteen, and he detested the Dark Arts as well. And where is it said in canon that people who use the Unforgivable Curses are automatically attracted to the Dark Arts? Loads of Aurors used them sixteen years ago, Barty Crouch used them, we know, and yes, he was not exactly a good man, but he certainly wasn't a Death Eater. Harry is a whole different concept, anyway. In the end, I just trust in JKR. And according to her (when asked by a reader at the Royal Albert Hall reading, soon after book 5 was released, which character she missed most when finished writing): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going to have to say Harry because he is my hero and there is a lot of me in Harry." Harry is human, meaning inherently flawed, and he was in pain, and he made a mistake he didn't actually mean. But he's still my hero, too. From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 13:42:52 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:42:52 -0000 Subject: The Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <015701c3e007$a7673e60$356932d2@your6xiyzrxcn6> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89318 "silencer" wrote: > Got a question. What happened to the Mirror of Erised at the end of PS? > > Also what do you think other characters in this story would see if they looked into the mirror? No one knows. Dumbledore took it away, I guess. It's never seen again after Harry faces Quirrell/Voldemort. Though, more than likely, we'll definitely be seeing it again. Well, apparently, Dumbledore sees socks (yeah, right). Hermione would probably see the House Elves freed in some way, Neville might see his parents sane, Ron... probably something similar to what he saw his first year, he's still struggling for his own identity, just not to the degree he once was (especially after winning the Quidditch Cup), and Harry? His family, still. And Sirius. And Luna... maybe her mother, and perhaps an ACTUAL Crumple-Horned Snorkack :) Ginny strikes me as being pretty happy as she is, but we still have a lot to learn about her, neh? ~ Hitomi, who would love to see Harry build a family of his own one day, if he doesn't snuff it in Book 7, that is (which would be more than depressing, so I choose not to think about that alternative) From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 21 14:45:17 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:45:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Questions about Pensieves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040121144517.18577.qmail@web25008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89319 abbet wrote: -snip- ... when Snape grabbed Harry and threw him out of his office, Snape didn't know what the memory was of, just that he didn't want Harry to see it. Berit replies: -snip- ... Snape himself dived into that particular memory to retrieve Harry. I'm sure he noticed which memory he and Harry was in... Snape is usually a very acute observer :-) Anneli now: But do we know that Snape had to actually go into the pensieve to retrieve Harry? Harry's perception may have dived in, but his physical body might just be standing next to the pensieve, so Snape could just pull him backwards without seeing inside. I was also wondering, could someone put memories that they didn't want into a pensieve and leave them there, or can they only be temporarily removed? Anneli ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 21 15:21:08 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:21:08 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: <001001c3dfb0$0e49edb0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89320 Helen wrote: Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling than their gifts to her. Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not playing favorites? Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will tell ;) Helen (LizardLaugh), who thinks Hermione harbors romantic feelings for both. Berit replies: Well, if one should only judge from Hermione's identical gifts to the two boys, I'd say Hermione doesn't care for any of them the romantic way :-) Would you say her gifts were what you'd call "romantic"? Several posters have complained that Ron is giving Hermione a gift that sucks. If Hermione really likes both Ron and Harry romantically but doesn't know how to choose between the two, her gifts doesn't really bear witness to good judgment, does it... Why; homework planners?!? Come on! At least I'm quite sure Hermione did not consider what the boys would LIKE to get for Christmas; it rather looks like she got them something she thought they NEEDED (poor Hermione; I can understand her though; always having to do their homework when they fail to do them themselves :-) Harry seems to be the only one giving gifts the recipient actually wants :-) bboy_mn wrote: So Ron screwed up in a very typical 'guy' sort of way, but come on, at least the poor boy is trying. At least he has figured out that Hermione is a girl and is trying to do things that acknowledge the fact. Berit replies: I loved your post bboy_mn :-) Even though I'm of the opposite sex I understand your point perfectly well :-) Poor Ron is doing the best he can, and I believe Hermione appreciated the thought behind the gift, even though she pointed out how "unusual" the perfume was. Actually I think there are subtle hints in canon that Hermione has been hoping and waiting a long time for Ron to "wake up" and realize he likes her more than just being a friend. Because I think Hermione likes Ron more than a friend as well. Let me point to a few incidents that might support this: Hermione's annoyance at Ron not "discovering" she's a girl till their third year, and her telling him to ask her first next time there's a ball..... Hermione saying 'Harry, you're worse than Ron ... well, no, you're not.' (OoP p. 505) In GoF, it's even more obvious that Hermione cares for Ron. Just look at how she reacts whenever the stunningly beautiful Fleur is around Ron...this quote's very telling: Quote: "[says Fleur:] 'I am 'oping to get a job 'ere,to improve my Eenglish.' 'It's very good already,' said Ron, in a strangled sort of voice. Fleur smiled at him; Hermione scowled." Getting a bit jealous perhaps? :-) Also, I don't think Ron and Hermione's constant bickering is an argument they won't get together; quite the contrary. Opposites attract each other... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 15:34:26 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:34:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nanstey2001" wrote: > Herman wrote: > > > > This added with all the little bits of evidence added before > > > confirms in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and Ron. I think the best support may be as pointed out by author John Granger on the alchemical references JKR uses heavily: sulphur (Ron) and quicksilver/mercury (Hermione- if you have any doubts still, note that her name is feminine of Hermes) were known as 'the quarreling couple.' (ref.: _The Hidden Key to Harry Potter_) Betta smaragdina From sophierom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 15:51:10 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:51:10 -0000 Subject: Who, exactly, is Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meltowne" wrote: > I know it's a bit of a leap, but what if Dumbledore isn't Ron, but > Harry? What if Harry goes back 150 years to live after he defeats > Voldemort? Maybe he doesn't want to live in a time & place where > everybody knows him, and expects great things of him. > > He would know what Tom Riddle was before he even became LV, but would > be unable to do anything about it - or risk altering his own past. > He would know how he would be treated as a young child, but unable to > change it. > > His wisdom and intelligence would still be based on age and > experience, just a different childhood than we might expect. Of > course, then we have to figure out where his brother came from, if he > really is his brother. Sophierom: This is an interesting theory, but I don't think it could work. Unlike the Ron=Dumbledore theory, the Harry=Dumbledore theory lacks evidence of physical resemblence. Also, I can't imagine Harry wanting to relive his experiences against LV. I don't think I can accept the time travel plots related to Dumbledore, though I'm very tempted to do so. I think the reason that this idea is so tempting is that we're looking for some reason to explain a contradiction of sorts: how is that Dumbledore can be so wise and so powerful a wizard, yet end the end, do little to spare Harry from his painful experiences? Now, this may sound blasphemous, and I apologize in advance for offending anyone, but this contradiction reminds me a lot of the way many debate the issues of omnipotence and omniscence of God (or whatever supreme being(s) one chooses to believe in). If God is all knowing, how can God let bad things happen? Does it mean that God is actually not all powerful? Or perhaps God is not all knowing? If God is all powerful and all knowing, doesn't that mean God lets bad things happen to good people? And if this is so, doesn't that make God cruel? I actually think JKR does not mean to equate Dumbledore with God, but instead, she makes Dumbledore the ultimate parent figure. When children are young, they look to their parents, guardians, or other forms of leadership/authority with awe ... in some ways, these people are the gods of their young worlds. They seem to control major events; they are responsible for creating the children (either literally in the case of parents or figuratively creating the child's world in the case of other authority figures) and guiding them through life. In relative terms, the parent figure seems all powerful and all knowing . But as children get older, they begin to question these figures and the roles they play in their lives ... imagine the heartbreak a child feels when her parent figure can't help her out in a bad situation or when the parent figure can't explain why something is happening to her. Basically, children begin to learn that their parent figures aren't all knowing and aren't all powerful. And this leads to disillusionment and distress. I think this heartbreak and angst is what Harry's going through now. He looks to Dumbledore with awe and wonder in the first few books. Here's this wise, powerful wizard who, in the end, helps Harry make everything all right. But as events (and life in general) get more complicated, Dumbledore can no longer fix everything for Harry. And this hurts Harry; he becomes disillusioned with this hero figure who isn't perfect anymore. As readers who experience things from Harry's POV, I think we tend to feel this disillusionment as well. For some of us, that manifests itself in the ESE!Dumbledore theories. Since he knows so much but doesn't help Harry, he must be evil! For others, the time travel theories are attractive ... they help to explain why Dumbledore seems to know so much but is ultimately powerless when it comes to Harry's most painful experiences. (Btw, I don't mean to simplify anyone's interesting theories ... just rushed for time here. ) None of this is to say that the above theories can't be correct; who knows how JKR sees Dumbledore. But she's obviously done a great job of conveying Harry's feelings toward Dumbledore; otherwise, we wouldn't spend so much time wondering just who this interesting character really is! Sophierom From paulag5777 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 16:00:53 2004 From: paulag5777 at yahoo.com (Paula Gaon) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:00:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". Message-ID: <20040121160053.27731.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89323 21January2004 Kristini wrote: "...this chapter seems to be slightly more self-aware than the others? Does an awareness of reader expectation pervade the chapter?..." Paula now: Most definitely! Even after all of the goings on at the MoM, I'm still sitting on the edge of the chair, waiting to find out what's really up regarding Luna. For one thing, IMHO, the fact that Luna was the only one who came out unscathed is significant. Also, I see the *diversions* of the weather description and lengthy absences of Ron and Hermione as JKR's way of opening a door to involvement of Luna for sure, and possibly Neville with his new plant, in a a real suprise in the future plot. As we've seen, she doesn't just drop events and leave them. My gut theory is a connection between Luna's parents and Harry's in some sort of potions experiment against LV. Anyone have any more ideas? Frankly I'm more than ready for Book 6! ~Paula Gaon Please visit Beautiful and Fun Things: http://alumni.austincollege.edu/pgaon/ "...Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 16:08:29 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:08:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lost wands and Sirius's motorcycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040121160829.99375.qmail@web11305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89324 --- justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, who wonders if the motorcycle is keeping > company with the > Flying Ford Anglia in the Forbidden Forest or if > it's just forgotten, > along with Fluffy, in the No Man's Land of forgotten > plot devices. I do not for a moment believe they are forgotten...JKR said Fluffy was in the Forbidden Forest. I predict (Seer glasses on) that in book 6 or, more likely, 7 a major battle will take place in the FF which will include Centaurs, Ford Anglia, Aragog with his kin, Grawp (perhaps with kin as well), Fluffy, the thestrals, the unicorns... I can't wait. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jan 21 16:12:16 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kirstini" wrote: > The narration then focuses in on Neville for a time. We are reminded ? > yet again ? that Neville is very forgetful, that he has an interest > in Herbology, and of his unusual family circumstances. He shows off > his new pet cactus ? the Mimbulus Mimbletonia ? to Harry, and there > is a comic moment where he accidentally manages to cover the whole of > the carriage in Stinksap. This chapter only focuses on the comic > aspects of Neville's personality, and no mention is made ? even in > passing ? of his parents or their tragedy. JenR: I found this incident with the Stinksap interesting, both because it happened without Ron and Hermione present and because of the focus in OOTP on potion ingredients (ie. Confusing and Befuddlement draughts; properties of moonstone). So Neville, Harry, Luna and Ginny were covered in Stinksap. Recently, someone pointed out that these four were uninjured (or slightly injured) in the battle at the DOM, and could that be because of the Stinksap? I think it was, because of the "amazing defensive mechanism" of the Mimbulus that Neville tells us about in this chapter. And the fact that Ron and Hermione weren't covered in Stinksap seems ominous for the future. Kirstini: While the carriage is > recovering from the Stinksap attack, Cho Chang drops by to see Harry, > much to his embarrassment. Although the Stinksap is bad enough, Harry > is also embarrassed to be seen sitting with Neville and Luna rather > than "a group of very cool people". JenR: This was funny--since when has Harry worried about being cool, and who exactly are the cool people at Hogwarts?? I guess this was a way to remind us Harry is not a kid anymore and is interested in dating, etc., but Harry's never been one to apologize for his friends before. Kirstini: >> Is there a sense that, by introducing a new character, subverting > Harry's expectations for the journey, deliberately taking time out to > describe the weather and spending a lot of time over aspects of the > story ? like Neville's cactus ? which might be seen to be deliberate > red herrings, this chapter seems to be slightly more self-aware than > the others? Does an awareness of reader expectation pervade the > chapter? JenR: Good point. The confusion on the train was definitely a precursor to Harry's disappointing and chaotic year. The way Luna is introduced and the absence of Ron and Hermione is particularly jolting. We're used to Neville and Ginny being attached to the trio at times, but having Luna appear without Hermione/Ron present--well, it feels unbalanced, Harry seems more vulnerable. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 21 16:21:30 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:21:30 -0000 Subject: Quirrell dying (was Harry's far from ruthless ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89326 > > >> In short, Harry tends to dislike with very good reason. All > > these > > people (other then Snape, maybe) do not *deserve* > > compassion. And when I say that they don't deserve > > compassion, I mean that *JKR* doesn't see them as deserving > > compassion. So, it's hardly fair to blame Harry for this, is it?<< Pippin, previously: > > Lupin and Sirius aren't setting a good example, are they? Naama: > Err.. what do you mean? Where? In the Shrieking Shack? > Pippin: Exactly. Neither Sirius nor Lupin bothers to check on Snape, though he might be seriously injured, until they're ready to leave, and then Sirius goes banging Snape's already injured head against the roof of the tunnel. And they appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner for Peter Pettigrew, though they're hardly disinterested parties. They're not setting a good example when it comes to treating others as they'd like to be treated themselves, IMO. I didn't think much about Quirrell as deserving of compassion in PS/SS. But Voldemort's description of him in GoF "a wizard, young, foolish, gullible" reminded me of Ginny as she seemed to be in CoS - an innocent ill-prepared to cope with the wiles of Voldemort. I think we are saying the same thing, that Harry shows compassion appropriate for his age and we can expect him to grow in compassion as he continues to mature. Harry's inability to cast the Cruciatus on Bella reminds me of the dialogue between Galadriel and Frodo in LOTR. Frodo asks why the Ring doesn't give him more of its powers, and is told that to use them he would have to become far stronger and train his will to the domination of others. In order to use Cruciatus, Harry would have to train his will to cause pain. Anger alone won't do, it seems. It may even hinder the spell. Those who can cast Cruciatus don't seem to be angry when they perform it, do they? I think JKR has a practical reason for making clear it takes more than raw emotion to power the Unforgiveables. Children sometimes fear that their angry wishes can actually take effect. I think JKR wants to show that even in the Potterverse it takes more than wishing to hurt someone. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 21 17:24:01 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:24:01 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > Now me: > > But Kneasy, it's made clear in the books that *no one* takes offense > > at the word "muggle"--it's intended to be an IDENTIFIER, sort of > > like "human" or "witch". But "mudblood" in canon is clearly shown to > > be a PEJORATIVE. Thus, there's no reason to complain about **the > > term** "muggle"; by JKR's design it's not packed w/ connotation. > > > > I would also ask the following: do the Death Eaters not go after > > muggles *selectively*, most likely those who've borne a witch or > > wizard, thereby "tainting" the wizarding world? > > > > No one take offence at the term Muggle? > Hmmm. Now give me a reference where a Muggle has been called that > to their face, please. Even better, where they understand the implication > of the term and where that places them in relation to wizards. > > The Muggles are the 'out' group. The only Muggles to receiving page > time so far are the Dursleys (cast as foster parents from hell), the > Grangers (patronised by Arthur), Frank Bryce (zapped by Voldy) and that > poor bloody farmer at the QWC (mind manipulation and torture). > > Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with that, I think it's great > fun. But they are "the great unwashed" so far as the WW is concerned; > to be used, abused and dismissed. If I thought the books were to be > taken seriously, I'd be feeling quite miffed and planning a re- enactment > of the Salem pyrotechnics. > > As to your second point, I don't think so. There's no indication that > Mr Roberts (that farmer) has any previous connection with the WW. > > Kneasy SUSAN AGAIN: The word "Muggle" is used all the time, in everyday conversation! Seamus announces his mum's a witch, his dad's a Muggle. Arthur works in the Office for the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts. I doubt anyone would set up a "Misuse of Mudblood Artifacts Office." I'm not arguing about how Muggles are or aren't treated; I'm arguing about the WORD "Muggle". Many wizards may well see Muggles as lesser; that is a different issue. I stick w/ my argument that "Muggle" is an identifier, pure & simple; "Mudblood" is a pejorative. Siriusly Snapey Susan From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 21 18:28:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:28:08 -0000 Subject: Vauxhall Road - again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89328 Some of you with long memories going back at least six weeks will recall a long thread on Vauxhall Road arising from the fact that Tom Riddle's diary carried a label with the name of a newsagent's shop in Vauxhall Road. Shaun Hately and I, at opposite ends of the globe, pursued our own investigations which seemed to narrow down Vauxhall Road, as it was in about 1942, to having been what is now the eastern end of Kennington Lane. Shaun raised the point that Wandsworth Road had also been known as Vauxhall Road but I felt that this had been so long ago that it would not have been remembered by this name in the 1940s. I contacted the Reference Library in my old area of London (where I lived from 1949-94) about this. After problems with crossed and missing emails, the email reproduced at the end of this posting reached me today. It suggests that Wandsworth Road as a name was in use over a century before Tom Riddle began to prowl the streets. I feel that it continues to lay firm foundations for our belief that the road TR knew was close to the Elephant and Castle and not a million miles from the Stockwell Orphanage. If anyone wonders what on earth I am wittering on about, the thread makes quite interesting reading as a bit of modern HPFGU detective work and starts at message 86517. The email..... "Dear Mr Bannister Thank you for your email originally dated 17th December 2003 regarding Wandsworth Road and Vauxhall Road. I have found a reference to Vauxhall Cross being an abolished name for a part of Wandsworth Road, in the LCC's Names of streets and places ... (1929). However this name still appears in the modern street atlas for London, probably for much the same area. The 1745 Rocque map calls the Wandsworth Road the Kingston Road, as does the 1801 book "Companion from London to Brighthelmstone" by Edwards. This book also refers to the Vauxhall (turnpike) gate on the Kingston Road. The 1835 Battersea Poor Rate Book refers to the Wandsworth Road. There is no reason that it should not have been referred to as the VauxhallRoad, but I have not found it mentioned. (Battersea Park Road was once called the Lower Wandsworth Road.) It is worth checking with Lambeth Archives in case they can trace more information on Vauxhall Road:- archives at lambeth.gov.uk I am sorry not to have found more. Yours sincerely David Ainsworth Wandsworth Local History Service Battersea Library" From aimking0110 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 18:32:19 2004 From: aimking0110 at yahoo.com (Garrett) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:32:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Found some evidence - to support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89329 I know this maybe do with the movie but not really, In an interview on the 2nd movie rowlings says that the writers hit on ship she didnt rally let evolve until the fourth book, and while she wassaying his they showed a clip of ron and hermione. Garrett P.S. To the moderators, I used the interview of JK rowling, is that considered canon? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smaragdina5" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nanstey2001" > wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > > This added with all the little bits of evidence added before > > > > confirms in my mind the future relationship btw Hermione and > Ron. > > I think the best support may be as pointed out by author John Granger > on the alchemical references JKR uses heavily: sulphur (Ron) and > quicksilver/mercury (Hermione- if you have any doubts still, note > that her name is feminine of Hermes) were known as 'the quarreling > couple.' (ref.: _The Hidden Key to Harry Potter_) > > Betta smaragdina From ktd7 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 18:53:30 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:53:30 -0000 Subject: Questions about Pensieves In-Reply-To: <20040121144517.18577.qmail@web25008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89330 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > > abbet wrote: > -snip- > ... when Snape grabbed Harry and threw him out of his > office, Snape didn't know what the memory was of, just > that he didn't want Harry to see it. > > Berit replies: > -snip- > ... Snape himself dived into that particular memory to > retrieve Harry. I'm sure he noticed which memory he > and Harry was in... Snape is usually a very acute > observer :-) > > Anneli now: > But do we know that Snape had to actually go into the > pensieve to retrieve Harry? Harry's perception may > have dived in, but his physical body might just be > standing next to the pensieve, so Snape could just > pull him backwards without seeing inside. > > I was also wondering, could someone put memories that > they didn't want into a pensieve and leave them there, > or can they only be temporarily removed? > Karen now: Anneli, I asked the same question about remembering a memory that has been removed several months ago! :-) I kinda got blown off for being to "stupid" to understand, but I know exactly what you are saying! I think it is possible to remove a memory for an extended amount of time, as that is what Dumbledore appears to have done. I've always thought that the reason older adults tend to be more forgetful is because they have so many more things to remember! Some stuff gets pushed out to make room for the new stuff. I also question why Snape was so angry, Harry saw an embarrassing memory, but it was hardly something to make a mature adult so angry, especially when he left the pensieve out in view. As a former teacher, I always knew anything I left in sight on my desk was fair game for students. Anything of importance was locked in a drawer. Karen From oppen at mycns.net Wed Jan 21 19:22:17 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:22:17 -0600 Subject: Underage Use of Magic Message-ID: <01c901c3e053$e2ed0f40$9a510043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 89331 Myself, I could see the MoM taking the attitude that magical children growing up in a family with at least one adult witch or wizard (parents, grandparents, what-have-you) don't need as close supervision as those growing up in an all-Muggle environment such as the Dursleys'. I mean---we're meant to feel for the Muggle-borns, but they can't all be angels, now can they? Can you imagine Dudley Dursley with magical powers and no MoM oversight? The kid's enough of a juvenile delinquent as it is! He'd be terrorizing the neighborhood _and calling attention to the fact that the WW exists,_ and he'd be a loose cannon on deck. The Weasley children have magical parents, so it would be difficult in any case for the MoM to monitor their home, but someone like an altnernate, evil Hermione Granger could get up to all sorts of evil shenanigans with magic over the holidays. From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 20:23:01 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:23:01 -0000 Subject: Who, exactly, is Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meltowne" wrote: > I know it's a bit of a leap, but what if Dumbledore isn't Ron, but > Harry? You mean, he magically dyed his hair auburn (COS)? Betta smaragdina From jennefer_pizza at muzak.com Wed Jan 21 16:30:37 2004 From: jennefer_pizza at muzak.com (jenzajlp) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:30:37 -0000 Subject: Harry the Auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89333 Del: > We're not talking about just hurting someone. We're talking about > *torturing* someone. That's why the Cruciatus is an Unforgivable. > Harry went through it, he knows what it does, and he still wanted to > apply it to another human being. That shows he's got no compassion > and no self-restraint. Geoff: > Come off it, Del. If Harry had no compassion or self-restraint, he > would have tried to go for "Avada Kedavra". He was boiling mad; he > wanted to get back in some way at Bellatrix but did he really, > really, deep down want to kill her? Jenza: Coming out of lurking just to add my 2 knuts. I agree with Geoff, and I have this to add...Harry had just witnessed Bellatrix murder his godfather. I don't know if you've ever had anyone do violence to anyone in your family, but coming from a situation like this myself, I can completely understand Harry's feelings *in that moment*. It's easy to say that wanting to hurt or torture a fellow human being is wrong and shows no self restraint, but I promise, just after something like this, your emotions are completely raw. It is a hurt that is unexplainable and rational thoughts are not going through your head. The fact that Harry tried to curse Bellatrix with an Unforgivable curse, which is something so out of character for him, and *failed* shows that he really didn't want to hurt her. There was a time just after the death of a family member that my emotions were so raw, I felt that I wanted to hurt the person who caused this pain. Now that I've had time to reconcile my feelings, I feel it's not my place to do so and I know that wanting to hurt this person was wrong. I see Harry being in the same situation, only he had the chance to act on those raw feelings, and I didn't. And I think that perhaps later on, he will realize that trying to curse Bellatrix was wrong, however his feelings were human and justified. back to lurking... Jen (who sympathizes with Harry greatly, but wishes he weren't such a snotty teen sometimes...) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 21 21:12:12 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:12:12 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > The word "Muggle" is used all the time, in everyday conversation! > Seamus announces his mum's a witch, his dad's a Muggle. Arthur works > in the Office for the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts. I doubt anyone > would set up a "Misuse of Mudblood Artifacts Office." > > I'm not arguing about how Muggles are or aren't treated; I'm arguing > about the WORD "Muggle". Many wizards may well see Muggles as > lesser; that is a different issue. I stick w/ my argument > that "Muggle" is an identifier, pure & simple; "Mudblood" is a > pejorative. > Yep, Muggle is used all the time in the WW - by *wizards*. It was invented by them, is used exclusively by them as an exclusive term. Muggles are the common muck from which a gem might appear - a wizard. Otherwise they are worthless and something very like apartheit is practised. Hagrid says it all - they'd want their problems solved by magic! OK for us, not for them; they're much better off on their own. Mudblood is a conceit used by purebloods. It is an artificial divide; the ones of which it is used are, in fact, wizards. It is reminiscent of aristocratic pretensions of superiority over self-made men in a democracy - pointless and irritating. It demonstrates the last gasp of the loser. Frost posted intimating (semi-humorously I think) that from now on, if the word Muggle was used for her/him there would be a strong response. It would only count IMO if the person using it was *not* a Muggle and how could Frost tell? A pejorative term cuts when the one on the receiving end is insulted or offended. (Sometimes it backfires on the prejudiced; in my years abroad I've been called all sorts of names that were intended to be insulting. Many I found amusing and some I positively relished. That throws 'em.) But in this particular instance I think Muggle is a discriminatory term and I have a very good lawyer who says that if I can prove that I'm being victimised I could make a packet out of this. Yippee! Early retirement! Kneasy From dalriada26 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 16:48:27 2004 From: dalriada26 at yahoo.com (Dalriada) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:48:27 -0000 Subject: Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89335 Snip > lizvega2: > Actually I'd like to see canon supporting that Fawkes came with the > office. In COS, (Sorry, no reference I'm at work) Harry enters Tom > Riddle's 'memory' and finds himself in the Headmaster's office. He > makes a note of the fact that this office does not belong to > Dumbledore yet, and he specifically says there's no Fawkes there. Snip Dally here: So, based on the memory in COS, Fawkes may not come with the specific office, but with the position of Headmaster. In the previously quoted essay by Phyllis D. Morris, she asks "If we accept the premise that Fawkes was once Gryffindor's phoenix, it raises the interesting question of who might have owned Fawkes between the time of Gryffindor's death and when Dumbledore assumed responsibility for him." Morris then speculates that Fawkes may have been cared for by the Druidess Cliodna. I just wanted to clear up what I meant when I said "According to the Lexicon" in my original post. Morris doesn't have exact page number references to support her theories, but they sound fairly reasonable to me. From malaprop2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 19:11:33 2004 From: malaprop2000 at yahoo.com (malaprop2000) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:11:33 -0000 Subject: Would a pensieve be classified as a "dark" object? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89336 Or is it just a "high-galleon item?" What I think I know: As far as I can tell from the books, there is only one pensieve at Hogwarts. It belongs to Dumbledore and is loaned to Snape for Harry's Occlumency lessons. Of course, the latter half of the sentence is based on Harry's assumption that it is the same pensieve - OOP, page 529 (US edition) - and, as we all know, Harry's assumptions are not always correct. At no point are we told by JKR that it is the only one. IMHO, it would be an indispensable item for a spy: Buy this NOW and get those traitorous memories out of your head BEFORE you apparate to a meeting. Malfoy would find it useful, too. In the lexicon and the HPFGU archives, there is a theory that only the owner of the pensieve can use it to store memories (blown out of the water if the assumption that Snape borrowed Dumbledore's is true). It makes sense to me that there would be only one user per basin (otherwise incorrect/false memories could be placed there by an accomplished wizard/witch). Another theory states that a wizard/witch would have to go through miles and miles of red tape to own a pensieve. (I can't find canon evidence for this and I'm wondering if that idea developed from the fact that since only one time turner has been seen in the books and Hermione had to go through miles and miles of red tape to use it, the same would apply to a pensieve. If any one can give me a Title/Chapter where it is actually stated that pensieve usage is restricted, I'd appreciate it.) I'm of the opinion that we don't see a lot of them because they are fiendishly difficult to make and therefore, very expensive. I can see where the Ministry might consider it a dark object because it would mean that information could be hidden from them. AND an object requiring some training in its use - apparently Harry just falls into whatever memory advances the plot while Dumbledore can "stir up" specific ones (or so it seems in GoF, Chapter 30) And whether it is dark or light, fiendishly difficult and expensive to make (no canon support for that statement - just appears that way to me). I tend to think that it would be classified as a "dark" item, requiring training and possibly a license, but an indispensible object for ws/ws in positions of authority - or older ws/ws who might need to clear out some space in their heads. Any thoughts? Feel free to point out any gaping holes in the above. From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 18:46:07 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:46:07 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's second prediction/Forbidden Forest Creatures Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89337 At the end of POA Trelawney does her whole rigid face/ deep voice thing and predicts what we assume to be Pettigrew escaping and returning to Voldemort. I don't have my book in front of me, but doesn't she also say that the dark lord will rise again, with the servant's help, more powerful than before? I'm paraphrasing, but I interperet this to mean that Pettigrew would help Voldemort rise agin, which he did literally in GOF, but, most importantly, that Voldemort will regain his former power, and then some. JKR has said that Cedric's death was the beginning of the deaths. There will be more to come, and now that Voldemort can't hide behind the MM's 'nothing to see hear folks' attitude- isn't it reasonable to assume that he will begin a very public reign of terror, worse than fifteen years ago? After he gets the DE's out of Azkaban that is. Which brings me around to my second point. Based on the above theory, if Voldemort does gain more power, and is able to take over certain arenas that were out of reach to him during his first swing, wouldn't he want to take Hogwarts? Hagrid said in PS that Voldemort was getting powerful, but not powerful enough to take the school. If Voldemort is more powerful this time, isn't it likely he'll go after the place where: 1. Harry is. 2. Dumbledore is. 3. And, I'm still not discounting Neville as a possible 'alternative' 'one with the power to vanquish the dark lord' 4. Not to mention a place that would be 'safe' for him- as there are few places as safe as Hogwarts. Now, if Voldemort does decide to take Harry at the school, something that can only happen in book 7, is it logical to think that the army that will stop him will not only be students and staff, but as a first defense, the creatures of the forbidden forest? Pretty scary stuff: Centaurs Grawp Unicorns Aragog and family Fluffy Not to mention a whole lot of House Elves (Not in the forest of course) who we as readers know to possess a certain amount of power of their own. I'm still convinced Dobby can apparate, but enough rambling from me. Anyone want to give me an opinion on this? LizVega From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 20:42:39 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:42:39 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89338 nanstey2001 wrote: > All that is certain is, he's going one of > two ways - either back to his family, greatly > humbled, or his pride will get the best of him > in some way. Either way, I think he'll have a > definite role of signifigance - Otherwise, wouldn't > Rowling have mentioned him at the end of Book 5? After reading Goblet of Fire, I was convinced that somehow Ron would go over to Voldemort's side in later books. The reason I believed this is because of his decision not to believe Harry about the TriWizard Tournament, and his constant insecurity regarding money. I remember reading in PS when Voldemort was trying to get Harry to give him the stone by promising to reunite Harry with his parents. It seems that's in Voldemort's nature, to go after peoples weaknesses, he can, after all read minds. Ron would be an easy target for Voldemort, he wants so many things: Galleons, respect, etc., however, when Percy decided to follow Fudge blindly, my concerns with Ron were squashed. Percy, it seems, would be an easier target than Ron. And, I'm convinced that one of the Weasley's will turn out rotten. Hey, one out of nine isn't bad. He kinda reminds me of Peter Pettigrew. Sirius/Lupin? remarked that Peter always looked for the biggest bully on the playground to hide behind. This sounds like Percy. At the end of GOF, we learn in OOP, that Percy had an inquiry at the MOM, and then was promoted to Fudge's assistant. He walked away from his family, even slamming the door in Molly's face, because he thought the 'biggest bully' - the MOM- would protect him, and provide him with the kind of life he'd always dreamed of having. Damn eighteen years of familial ties, he wanted power. Now, however, he knows he was wrong. I can't imagine how this will all play out, but I think it very unlikely that Percy will go back to his family eating crow. Fred and George will flat out tell him to sod off.. that's obvious from their attitude in OOP. So, if he's too embarressed to return to his family and apologize (He even said in his letter to Ron in OOP that he would accept an apology from Molly and Arthur, but nothing about him apologizing)and his position at the ministry is toast (Fudge is gone in the next book, there's no way he'll be able to stay in office after refusing to believe facts for a year, even the prophet had a two page spread about 'why nobody believed DD) and, then what? Voldemort has spies in the ministry, just like DD- Percy will go over to the dark side after being recruited by one of Voldemort's spies. That's the theory and I'm sticking to it- until book 6 comes out and crushes it! LizVega **Wishing I was at home with my books and dogs! From inky_quill at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 20:53:38 2004 From: inky_quill at hotmail.com (Julie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:53:38 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry's face in DD's Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > I was reading Goblet of Fire last night, and I came to the part > where Harry goes to DD's office after the divination-dream-scar > hurts/ episode. When Dumbledore is explaining how the pensieve > works, Harry notices as he pulls out some thoughts and places them > in the pensieve. I don't have my book in front of me, sorry, but > either Harry's face turns into Snapes, or Snape's into Harry. > > I'm sure it's been discussed, anyone have thoughts on what this > might mean? > > "lizvega2" The quote is on page 598 (US ed.)"Dumbledore added this fresh thought to the basin, and Harry, astonished, saw his own face swimming around the surface of the bowl. Dumbledore placed his long hands on either side of the Pensieve and swirled it, rather as a gold prospector would pan for fragments of gold ... and Harry saw his own face change smoothly into Snape's" ...[pensieve memory appears of Snape saying the Dark Mark is active again]. I tend to see it as a warning to Harry. We don't know what thought Dumbledore added (and he keeps adding them during his discussion with Harry). It could be of Harry peeking into the pensieve only moments before, hence Harry sees his face. But I do think that Dumbledore is in control of what scenes Harry now sees and deliberately chose the image of Snape's warning about the Dark Mark. That could be twofold: first to show Harry that Severus Snape is Dumbledore's in hopes of alleviating Harry's attitude towards the man; and secondly, to warn against only accepting things when they are obvious, which is often when its too late. The Dark Mark is again visible, that's obvious, but Dumbledore says, he didn't need to see the mark to know that Voldemort was returning to power. Similarly Bertha Jorkin's image--Dumbledore and Fudge were arguing over her disappearance when Harry interrupted them--is displayed to Harry, with the comment that the point is not that she teased the boy for kissing a girl behind the greenhouses, but why was she was there in the first place. Dumbledore seems to be trying to subtly teach Harry about to see the larger picture. He is showing Harry that small incidents are not necessarily isolated events. That people and events are more complex than they appear on the surface. One question of my own which you've made me notice lizvega2 is that in the dream which sends Harry to Dumbledore's office, Harry's dream- self arrives at the [Riddle]house via the back of an eagle owl, which then "fluttered" into a chair (the back of which hides both the owl and the chair seat/occupant), afterwhich Voldemort's voice is heard. Harry assumes that he just saw Voldemort get a letter by owl. But if Harry is able to "spy" on Voldemort because of the scar-link, then why would Harry be connected to the owl's journey rather than seeing the owl come to "him" in the chair. Has Voldemort been possessing owls to spy, pre-rebirth? Julie From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 21:41:10 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:41:10 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: >Percy, it seems, would be an easier > target than Ron. . .He kinda reminds me > of Peter Pettigrew. Interesting. Remember in COS when Draco says "Peter Weasley" and Harry/Ron in disguise correct him, and Draco is like, "whatever..." ? Betta smaragdina From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 20:17:28 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:17:28 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89341 > Helen wrote: > Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling > than their gifts to her. Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not > playing favorites? Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will > tell ;) > Helen (LizardLaugh), who thinks Hermione harbors romantic feelings > for both. Me (Hitomi): Ok, ships make me laugh. Personally, I think if there is anything going on between Harry and Hermione, JKR is covering it up marveously well. They treat each other exactly the way I treat all my best guy friends. And I think a lot of this is just nitpicking, especially from those slightly biased opinions, who would like to see Harry and Hermione together. Though I think they're grasping for straws. And again, in my opinion, Hermione's interest for Ron is more apparent in Book 4, such as the end of the Yule Ball. Hermione reminds me of myself, in that I don't think she'll display open affection unless she believes it will be reciprocated (in a romantic relationship). Hermione says it herself in Book 5, when talking to Harry about Cho: "Harry, your're worse than Ron.... Well, no, you're not." Hermione is, as we all know, extremely intelligent, and I think she realizes Ron hasn't worked out his feelings concerning her, yet. He's getting there, though. And as far as the gifts go, I think Hermione gave them what she thought they would really NEED. I don't think she's stupid enough to actually believe either Harry or Ron would want talking planners. But what with O.W.L.'s coming up... You would just think by now that Hermione would realize they aren't going to use such things, they usually don't even use the study schedules she makes up for them every year for exams. As far as that age old argument goes, concerning the kisses on the cheek (one to Harry in Book 4, then one to Ron in Book 5), I think it's a moot point. Hermione does that when she feels each one needs the most assurance. Harry at the end of Book 4, obviously, and Ron right before his first Quidditch match. Kisses on the cheek are, for the most part, very platonic, and I don't think Hermione meant anything romantic by either one of these instances. I just think she was being a best friend, and a girl at that. Giving reassurance and affection that only a girl could appropriately give a boy (I can't imagine Ron or Harry kissing each other, however platonically, anytime soon :) ) ~ Hitomi, who honestly couldn't care less about who ends up with who, as long as the characters end up happy, but who would be highly disappointed if Ron and Hermione didn't end up together, because when they act like an old married couple, they make me laugh From happybean98 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 21:16:49 2004 From: happybean98 at yahoo.com (happybean98) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:16:49 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89342 > Helen wrote: > > Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling > than their gifts to her. Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not > playing favorites? Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will > tell ;) Me (Kathleen): I agree that Hermione's gifts are telling. I personally feel that she prefers Harry, (when she asks him to knit with her in OOP, I think she's definitely fishing for Harry's true feelings. Also, she really casts out a line when she says, "And you should have told (Cho) how ugly I was too." OOP) (Might I add, she catches her fish when Harry says, "But I don't think you're ugly".) However, I think before she can really respect either boy as romance material, they have to stop being dependent on her. As intellectual as she is, she can't really see either of them as an "equal" unless they prove they can take responsibility for their own studies. How else can she be sure that they are not "using" her because she's smart? (As a former high-school nerd, I've experienced this quandry first hand.) The homework planners were her way of trying to force them to change. Alas, she fails, because as with her attempts to free the house elves, she wrongly thinks that providing the vehicle for change is all that is necessary to bring it about. Just as the house elves need to recognize their need for freedom for it to happen, Harry and Ron need to recognize their need to take responsibility for their own studies if they are to win Hermione's heart. If Ron figures this out, and makes a serious effort, he may win her in the end and make himself Head Boy in the process. Berit replies: > Also, I don't think Ron and Hermione's constant bickering is an > argument they won't get together; quite the contrary. Opposites > attract each other... Me (Kathleen): I agree that opposites attract, but it is not always a healthy thing. It can come about when one person feels they need the opposite qualities in someone of the opposite sex to complete them. It can be a sign that they don't feel complete in themselves, but I don't want to go off topic. Kathleen From helenhorsley at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 22:30:01 2004 From: helenhorsley at hotmail.com (dorapye) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:30:01 -0000 Subject: a bit o' R/H analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brian" wrote: > > > About Ron and Hermione: > I think JKR has Hermione watching Ron. I'm not sure that Hermione > has a crush on Ron, but she watches him very closely. His actions > affect her mood. Perhaps the most powerful example of this occurs in > OOTP when Ron rips Percy's letter and calls him "the world's biggest > git." Hermione looks at him strangely and then her mood changes for > the better, so much so that she reverses her policy of tough love and > finishes the boys' essays. I think the look she gave him was one of > appraisal. > dorapye: Well, people often refer to JKR's 'foreshadowing', and I'm often a little skeptical, but, when it comes to R and H, I can't help feeling this scene in OotP is making reference to a (possible) future outcome: p580 (UK Ed) '"What do you thingk of this?" Hermione demanded of Ron, and Harry was reminded irresistibly of Mrs Weasley appealing to her husband during Harry's first dinner at Grimmauld Place.' Immediately I read that, I was reminded of the scene when they first meet aboard the Hogwarts Express - Hermione says to Ron as she leaves the compartment (he's seen her off with his rudeness) "And you've got dirt on your nose by the way, did you know?" I always wondered what the point of that remark was - it doesn't fit as a "Well, sod you!" kind of retort, as I can't believe Ron would be really that bothered about dirt on his nose. But what it does do is have Hermione repeating Mrs Weasley's last interaction with her youngest son.... The question I have now is, is Ron destined to set his cap at a girl who reminds Harry of Ron's mother? Is this 'foreshadowing' of an R/Hship or perhaps just the opposite? dorapye From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 23:36:08 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:36:08 -0000 Subject: Magical Radar - Unwitting Request for Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89344 This post is in reference to the 'Hagrid's wand and wand use restrictions' thread. I'm starting a new thread because I really don't have a direct response to any specific person. Once again, you have all unwittingly invited me to post one of my many (many, many, many) theories. You asked for it, so ready or not, here it comes. Detection of Magic- Have you ever seen 'lightening strike' radar on the television weather report? The lightening strikes usually show up as little '+' (plus) signs, and as the lightening radar is played forward through a span of time, we see the accumulation of lightening strikes in our weather area. Hold that thought. Now let's look at standard weather radar, where various density of weather phenomenon show up as various colors depending on the intensity. Pale blues and pale greens represent mild rain showers. As the color moves through yellow toward oranges and reds, the storm become more intense. Dark red usually represents severe thunder storms, perhaps even tornados. I think a combination of these two represents the way magic is monitored, it is both event driven similar to lighten radar, and intensity driven similar to storm radar. The wizards monitoring magic occurrences at the Ministry of Magic are able to detect magical events. That allows them to closely monitor specific locations like Harry's (actually the Dursley's) house. If that magic exceeds a particular threshold, it then appears on Magic 'Storm' radar. When substantial bursts of magic occur or magic events occur at critical locations, that may automatically trigger more sophisticated magical detectors that can divine the nature of the magic that occurred. This would allow the Ministry of Magic to dispatch Accidental Magical Reversal Teams and Teams of Obliviators very quickly to deal with dangerous magical events. Now let pause to consider the "Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery (1875). First and foremost, let us note that it is the "Reasonable" restriction, not that absolute restriction. First, it's existence seems reasonable, we can't have wizards in training running around willy-nilly performing magic all over the place. The Ministry is quite busy enough, thank you very much, without having to run around undoing improperly executed spells by every juvenile wizard in the country. Seems quite reasonable to restrict an untrained wizard to using magic only under closely supervised conditions. More on that later. Now to a far more critical and important wizarding law; the "International Confederation of Wizards' Statute of Secrecy ". Now we are dealing with international law, and one at the very heart of the existence of wizarding government. By Hagrid's statement, and by general observation, the most significant and consuming function of wizarding government is to keep the existence of the wizard world secret from the muggles. An egregious breach of this law puts the entire wizard world at risk. If the muggles found out, it would be like finding out for an absolute fact that our government had know of the existence of space alien ever since they landed at Rosewell, New Mexico. Half the population of the world would be calling for us to NUKE them off the face of the universe and the other half would be worshiping them as gods; chaos, riots in the streets, wars over which countries had the right to exploit this new technology, chaos, chaos, chaos. Moving on, let's look at underage magic that does and appears to happen in the books. First, the Weasley twins; while not flatly stated, all indications seem to be that Fred and George are performing some magic during the summer holiday as the invent their joke products. True, a significant amount of that could be potion based, but I think there are enough indicators for us to conclude that it is not all potion based. So, why isn't the Ministry of Magic storming the Weasley Castle (figurative on the castle part) keen on throwing the miscreant Twins into prison? Why? Because it's happening in a secure space, among other things. The Weasleys live on a secluded farm away from the prying eyes of muggles. The Weasley farm, based on my best guess, is on muggle land purchased by Mr. Weasley, and it is just outside a muggle town, and logically, the Weasley farm is surrounded by other muggle farms. Although, I want to emphasis again that the Burrow is probably secluded, surrounded by trees and hills, and generally out of sight of muggles going about their daily business. In addition, it seems reasonable that Mr. Weasley would have added some muggle protections to his land. Although, I don't think he would have to go as far as the protections seen at the Quidditch World Cup or at 12 Grimmauld Place. I speculate that the Burrow isn't magically hidden from Muggles since three taxi drivers seemed to have found the place OK. Rather, Mr. Weasley has just applied some Apathy Charm to the land. This make the Burrow tediously boring and uninteresting to muggles. So utterly uninteresting that they completely ignore the place, and even if they do happen to see it, it's so boring that what they see barely, if at all, registers in their mind. So, beyond knowing that between this tract of land and that tract of land is another track of land which we know as the Burrow, the muggle don't give it a second thought or a second look. One might now ask, how in the world did three taxi drivers find such a tediously uninteresting place? Well, I can only speculate. It's possible that someone waited for them at the end of the driveway, and flagged them into the Burrow. Or Mr. Weasley may have relaxed the apathy charm. Or it could be that since the drive up is attached to a public road, it is not charmed, and therefore can be found by muggles. I could continue with assorted speculations, but we know for a fact that muggles can find the Burrow; we are all free to speculate as to why they can. No, no, I haven't forgotten that I am suppose to be talking about the twins and their unauthorized magic. Back on track again. My point is that Fred and George are in their home under the 'somewhat' supervision of their parents in a magically secure space away from muggles, so as long as they don't create a public nuisance the Ministry had better things to do with it's resources that chase mischief makers. Beside, magic is occurring all the time at the Burrow; the detection of a magical event there would hardly raise a yawn. Now let's look at magic at the Dursley residence. The wizard world, to some extend, know that the Dursley's are the muggliest muggles in the world. Although, the Dursleys are well aware of the existence of the wizard world. In addition since this is the residence of Harry Potter, who is at risk of retribution from Voldemort and his followers, the Ministry is closely monitoring that location, because if magic does occur there, there is a potential for it to be of disastrous proportions. I also believe that the significant persons at the Ministry of Magic, are not only aware of Harry's history but are very much aware that Harry has a future that is of vital significants to the wizard world. All the more reason to monitor 4 Privet Drive very closely. A lot of eyes are upon our dear Harry Potter, far far more than he realizes. Now to the magic that occurred there. The incidence of the Hover Charm, would be a significant event, and would be of noticeable intensity for magic occurring in a muggle home, even for muggles who are aware of the magic world. That would certainly trigger deeper investigation of the event. That incident is compounded by occurring in the presents of muggles; specifically Vernon and Petunia's guests, who without question must be protected from knowledge of the wizard world. Now a very substantial crime has been committed. Magic has been exposed to muggles, and significant action must be take to correct the situation. Since a violation of the highest and most significant international law has occurred, Harry is given a very stern warning, and rightly so. The incident of the blowing up of one Marjorie Dursley, while it involved a muggle, was an incident that was not observed by muggles. It is events exactly like this for which the 'Accidental Magical Reversal Squad' and the 'Oblviatior' exist. It was an accidental situation that was easily contained by the Ministry, so no harm done. What's that old sports saying, 'no harm, no foul'? The other magic that occurred during that event, was minor and didn't involve muggles, so again, no harm, no foul. We must look at underage magic from the two perspective of Underage Sorcery and breach of the Statue of Secrecy. Underage magic away from muggles, in magic or protected space, is a misdemeanor, a mischief crime right up there with staying out past the public curfew. This is far too trivial for the Ministry of Magic to waste it's resources chasing after every little event and occurrence. However, without a doubt, if the magic become significant, flagrant, or dangerous the Ministry would step in. Beach of the Code of Secrecy, puts the entire wizard world in danger, and under all circumstance would require a swift and sure response on the part of the Ministry. Events like these can not be ignored. So in one case, we have a petty misdemeanor and the other we have a capital crime, and the authorities respond accordingly. Now to Harry and the Dementors in the latest book. A Patronus charm is not small potatoes. Knowledgeable wizards and witches are quite impressed with Harry ability to produce one, and the occurrence of a charm this advanced and significant in muggle space could not be ignored. Our dear Fudge simply took an event that would certainly require the Ministry's attention and used it as the perfect excuse to railroad Harry into a conviction that would have gotten him out of the Ministry's hair for good. Even a blind man could see how Fudge unfairly manipulated the situation, doing everything possible to prevent Harry from properly defending himself, in order to discredit him. This particular circumstance involves far more than a mere breach of secrecy. One could ask why Harry wasn't prosecuted for the 'Lumos' charm. Again, we have to consider degree and context. Fudge would have been laughed out of court if he had tried to 'hang' Harry for a Lumos charm. That's an extremely minor charm that would hardly even register on the Ministry's radar screen, and certainly wouldn't have involved disclosing the secret wizard world to anyone who might observe it. It's way to minor to merit attention. So there you have it; my take on magical radar and the crimes it detects. Is there anything I left out? Of course, it's just a theory. bboy_mn From sophierom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 23:44:43 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:44:43 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's second prediction/Forbidden Forest Creatures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: < isn't it reasonable to > assume that he will begin a very public reign of terror, worse than fifteen years ago? After he gets the DE's out of Azkaban that is. Which brings me around to my second point. Based on the above > theory, if Voldemort does gain more power, and is able to take over certain arenas that were out of reach to him during his first swing, wouldn't he want to take Hogwarts? Hagrid said in PS that Voldemort was getting powerful, but not powerful enough to take the school. If Voldemort is more powerful this time, isn't it likely he'll go after the place where: > > 1. Harry is. > 2. Dumbledore is. > 3. And, I'm still not discounting Neville as a > possible 'alternative' 'one with the power to vanquish the dark lord' > 4. Not to mention a place that would be 'safe' for him- as there are > few places as safe as Hogwarts. > Sophierom: I think you're right about most of this ... Hogwarts would make the perfect setting for a final showdown. But, I'm confused about your point #4 - how would Hogwarts be "safe" for LV, or am I misinterpreting your sentence? Sorry. LizVega again: > Now, if Voldemort does decide to take Harry at the school, something that can only happen in book 7, is it logical to think that the army that will stop him will not only be students and staff, but as a first defense, the creatures of the forbidden forest? > > Pretty scary stuff: > > Centaurs > Grawp > Unicorns > Aragog and family > Fluffy > > > Not to mention a whole lot of House Elves (Not in the forest of > course) who we as readers know to possess a certain amount of power of their own.> Sophierom: I wonder if all the creatures you listed would happily serve as a "first defense?" I think that many of these creatures will only band together with the humans at Hogwarts after something catastrophic has happened. For example, I think the centaurs would not fight unless first attacked by the DEs; otherwise, they'd happily stay out of mere human affairs. And if the DEs have really gotten most giants on their side, Grawp's loyalty to Hagrid might be tested severely. While Argog might happily feed the DEs to his many children, would he be willing to make a distinction between the DEs and the followers of the Order? I can't say much about Fluffy and the unicorns, and I do think the House Elves would fight along side the Order/Hogwarts army, but then the question becomes, would all of the Hogwarts fighters be happy about fighting along side house elves whom they might consider below them? Dumbledore and Hermione seem to represent a minority view when they call for respect and tolerance toward the House Elves. I think this coalition will come together in the end, but it will be interesting to see how the WW works out its own set of prejudices to keep a diverse group of creatures fighting together. And I think that no one can count on these creatures to act as a first line of defense or as mere tools for defeating LV. The wizards against LV will have to come to recognize all the creatures as partners, and these humans will have to make some sacrfices and/or changes of attitude and custom. Interesting topic. Thanks! Sophierom From pjcousins at btinternet.com Thu Jan 22 00:23:52 2004 From: pjcousins at btinternet.com (confusinglyso) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:23:52 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89346 >Helen wrote: >Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is more telling. >Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Now Phil, (confusinglyso) The identical gifts were Homework Planners. This post is really for Geoff Bannister and Shaun Hately. In OoP (UK) Christmas on the Closed Ward page 443 the planner is described as looking like a diary. Neither boy is particularly impressed with the planners, indeed IIRC Harry threatens to throw his away at some point. I don't think either boy uses the planner much. Hermione gave both the same gift yet neither boy ever noticed the newsagents label inside. Same newsagent as Tom Riddle diary, but address now Wandsworth Road, London. Just teasing ;) Phil(istine) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 01:58:17 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:58:17 -0000 Subject: Magical Radar - Unwitting Request for Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89347 wrote: > Detection of Magic- > > The wizards monitoring magic occurrences at the Ministry of Magic are > able to detect magical events. That allows them to closely monitor > specific locations like Harry's (actually the Dursley's) house. If > that magic exceeds a particular threshold, it then appears on Magic > 'Storm' radar. > > When substantial bursts of magic occur or magic events occur at > critical locations, that may automatically trigger more sophisticated > magical detectors that can divine the nature of the magic that > occurred. This would allow the Ministry of Magic to dispatch > Accidental Magical Reversal Teams and Teams of Obliviators very > quickly to deal with dangerous magical events. > > Is there anything I left out? > Neri replies: An interesting question you left out, and was actually raised by Abbet several days ago (#89149) is why the same radar doesn't detect the use of unforgivable curses. It would be reasonable to assume that unforgivables have a strong and unique radar signature. My guess is that, like real radar, magic radar can be blocked, fooled, jammed, etc. Any bad guy worth his salt probably carries some kind of illegal stealth device. Underages are not likely to come by them, although I won't be surprised if Arthur Weasley installed such a device (captured in one of his raids, no doubt) in the Borrow, so he can experiment with bewitching muggle cars and the like without being asked embarrassing questions. This might help explaining how the twins got off so easily. Neri From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 22 02:37:44 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:37:44 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Sigh Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89348 In OOTP, ch. 26, p. 572 (US ed.), Hermione is explaining Harry's problem with Cho to him, and says that he should tell Cho that he thinks Hermione is ugly. He says he doesn't think she's ugly and then Hermione says he's worse than Ron and sighs ". . . maybe not" as Ron walks in. Can someone explain the significance of the sigh to me? Not being a 15 year old girl, I don't understand. It could mean: (1) She thinks Ron is worse at expressing his feelings towards her, and she wishes Ron were better at it. (2) Ron has been expressing his feelings toward her, and she wishes he would stop annoying her because she is not interested. (3) Ron has been expressing his feelings toward her, and she likes it and wants him to actually do something about it.. (4) She wishes Harry would be "worse than" Ron here and express his feelings about her. (4) She thinks all boys are jerks when it comes to expressing feelings. Any other possibilities? Help. From joi_foley at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 22:35:15 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:35:15 -0000 Subject: On Ron!DD (Re: Who, exactly, is Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89349 Sophierom said: "[JKR] makes Dumbledore the ultimate parent figure. When children are young, they look to their parents, guardians, or other forms of leadership/authority with awe... In relative terms, the parent figure seems all powerful and all knowing. (snippity) He looks to Dumbledore with awe and wonder in the first few books... But as events (and life in general) get more complicated, Dumbledore can no longer fix everything for Harry. (snippity) As readers who experience things from Harry's POV, I think we tend to feel this disillusionment as well. For some of us, that manifests itself in the ESE!Dumbledore theories. Since he knows so much but doesn't help Harry, he must be evil! For others, the time travel theories are attractive ... they help to explain why Dumbledore seems to know so much but is ultimately powerless when it comes to Harry's most painful experiences." I just don't believe Ron!DD. I don't believe it because I don't think DD really is all that ahead of the game. I think that Sophierom's analysis is the best- DD is a parental figure, and a darn fine one, at that. I don't think he really knows everything, but is just really good at appearing as if he does. I would imagine that, if I lived to be 150 years old, I would be very good at not letting people on about what I'm thinking. Not only that, but DD is the General of an Army. The reason why he's the General is because he's got it together- or at least, appears like he does. Who wants to fight under some guy who always looks really perplexed and scared? DD knows it's part of his job to be as collected as possible. Besides all that, DD admitted in OotP that he hasn't always handled the situation with Harry as he should have (I can't quote it as I don't have the book, I apologize). This is incredibly reminiscent of a parent talking to a teen, admitting he doesn't have the answers, but he's trying. As I was following this discussion, I remembered something from the PS/SS movie (I know, not canon, but as an example): During the sorting hat scene, when Harry's name is called, DD gets very, very interested, leaning forward in his seat to look, but then settles back down. This stands, for me, as the visualization of his character in regards to this discussion. He's surprised, curious, but still smart enough, wise enough to sit back a bit and not let anyone know. On an extra bonus note, I enjoy the theories on red hair in the series, and the possibility that Lily/DD/Weasleys are all related, but I don't think that hair colour is enough to establish anything more than relation. thanks, joi. From amani at charter.net Thu Jan 22 02:54:43 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:54:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Sigh References: Message-ID: <009f01c3e093$171e9380$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89350 Robert Jones: In OOTP, ch. 26, p. 572 (US ed.), Hermione is explaining Harry's problem with Cho to him, and says that he should tell Cho that he thinks Hermione is ugly. He says he doesn't think she's ugly and then Hermione says he's worse than Ron and sighs ". . . maybe not" as Ron walks in. Can someone explain the significance of the sigh to me? Not being a 15 year old girl, I don't understand. Taryn: Well, I'll try from the perspective of a 16-year-old girl, albeit American. It'll also depend on what SHIP direction you're coming from. However, it's important to note that what Harry is worse at then Ron is not expressing feelings, but understanding those of women (and subsequently dealing with them). The entire conversation was from Harry not getting Cho's signals at ALL. Expressing his feelings, although Lord knows he was muddled about it, was not the problem at the date. (I myself spent the entire date chapter going, "Harry, what are you DOING?!" and knowing exactly what Cho was doing.) Then you come to her saying that Ron's terrible at understanding women's signals, which would sound, to ME, that she was annoyed at his obliviousness to HER feelings. But I know a H/Hr's gonna bite my head off for that one. ;) Or you could take the more neutral route and say that Hermione is just amazedly annoyed that her two best friends could be so thick about stuff she found perfectly obvious, and Ron was the worse of the two. It could've been a, "I can't BELIEVE how stupid you guys can be sometimes" sigh. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dk_manchester at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 00:08:50 2004 From: dk_manchester at hotmail.com (Dave) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:08:50 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89351 After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least twice), I cannot understand why, a senior ministry employee, like Umbride, would resort to sending the Dementors to 'Kiss' Harry. I know the reason she gives, in chapters 32 and 33, (paraphrasing) that she wanted to help her boss, the Minister of Magic, but would there not be reprecusions for such action. The equivilent of the death penalty for being awkward and inconvienient sent on a teenage boy, Harry Potter, without a trial etc. Is there something else I'm missing? Dave From fredwaldrop at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 03:32:00 2004 From: fredwaldrop at yahoo.com (Fred Waldrop) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:32:00 -0000 Subject: Magical Radar - Unwitting Request for Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89352 wrote: Detection of Magic- The wizards monitoring magic occurrences at the Ministry of Magic are able to detect magical events. That allows them to closely monitor specific locations like Harry's (actually the Dursley's) house. If that magic exceeds a particular threshold, it then appears on Magic Storm' radar. When substantial bursts of magic occur or magic events occur at critical locations, that may automatically trigger more sophisticated magical detectors that can divine the nature of the magic that occurred. This would allow the Ministry of Magic to dispatch Accidental Magical Reversal Teams and Teams of Obliviators very quickly to deal with dangerous magical events. ===================================================================== Hello all, Fred Waldrop Here; One of the problems I have had is from OOTP, Chapter 3, "The Advance Guard". When the guard "breaks" into #4 Privet Drive, how many spells are used? I have assumed that one was used to fix the glass in the back door that Tonks breaks (page 45), one was used to open Harry's door (page 46), one to get some more light, Tonks again, (lumos, page 47), one to "pack" Harry's trunk (page 53), one to float Harry's trunk down the stairs after making sure Harry still had both buttocks still on (page 53), and a "Disillusionment Charm". So, 6 charms in what, 15 to 20 minuntes? And even if you say most of the charms were mild, from what I understood from the reading, the Disillusionment Charm was some pretty big magic. (and I still have not mentioned all the times Mundungus was popping in and out around Harry. If they cound not tell it was Dobby in CoS, how could they tell it was Dung, and everyone else, in OOTP?) Seems to me that if Fudge really wanted to get Harry, he would have kept charging Harry for every bit of magic done around Privit drive. Fred From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 03:32:28 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:32:28 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: I understand that Love is very popular theory, but JKR has already said that Love is close, but not exactly what is locked in the DoM. I honestly like the many different theories floating around now, like Life, Love, and Truth, etc, and I think that they all are very possible. Each one has its own way of fitting into the description of what is in the locked room, but then again, they also have certain points that dont seem to fit. I wish I had that interview's link, but I cant find it anymore. Whatever it is, it has to be something that is so easy it stumps us all; or maybe not. I honestly think love is too easy, and at the same time, I don't see that much love in Harry's life anyway. vmonte responds: I posted this once already but how about Humanity: The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness. ``The common offices of humanity and friendship.'' --Locke. vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 03:32:44 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:32:44 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: I understand that Love is very popular theory, but JKR has already said that Love is close, but not exactly what is locked in the DoM. I honestly like the many different theories floating around now, like Life, Love, and Truth, etc, and I think that they all are very possible. Each one has its own way of fitting into the description of what is in the locked room, but then again, they also have certain points that dont seem to fit. I wish I had that interview's link, but I cant find it anymore. Whatever it is, it has to be something that is so easy it stumps us all; or maybe not. I honestly think love is too easy, and at the same time, I don't see that much love in Harry's life anyway. vmonte responds: I posted this once already but how about Humanity: The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness. ``The common offices of humanity and friendship.'' --Locke. vmonte From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 04:13:05 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:13:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 10, "Luna Lovegood". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89355 So Neville, Harry, Luna and Ginny were covered in Stinksap. Recently, someone pointed out that these four were uninjured (or slightly injured) in the battle at the DOM, and could that be because of the Stinksap? I think it was, because of the "amazing defensive mechanism" of the Mimbulus that Neville tells us about in this chapter. And the fact that Ron and Hermione weren't covered in Stinksap seems ominous for the future. vmonte responds: Luna didn't get hit with stinksap. She raised her newspaper up before the plant exploded. She was the only person in the car not hit. vmonte From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 05:46:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:46:33 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89356 > Debbie wrote sometime back in post 38730 > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38730): > > they are very much alike, two bookends driven apart by the noisy, > attention-getting twins. > > bboy_mn agrees with this analysis, going on to say in post 88447 > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88447): > trapped in a downward spiral of 'approval seeking', and believe it or > not, much of the approval he seeks needs to some from Ron and the > Twins, which only proves just how sadly disfunctional the role is > that Percy has buried himself in. Ron on the other hand, still has a > chance to break the disfunctional cycle before he becomes as deeply > entrenched as Percy. Once the Twins are gone from Hogwarts, Ron > becomes much more comfortable with himself, and that's when he > begins to show his true potential. Without having to fear the Twin > approval/disapproval, Ron is free to attempt things without the > impending fear of rejection> > > Sophierom wrote: > While I love these ideas, particularly Debbie's characterization of > Ron and Percy as "bookends driven apart by the noisy, attention- > getting twins," I think we should not overemphasize the similarities > between the two brothers. As JKR has made abundantly clear > throughout the series, it is individual choice that really makes the > person. bboy_mn's insight that Percy is trapped in a dysfunctional > cylce is a very astute and sensative analysis, but ultimately, I > believe that JKR would argue that it was Percy's choice as an > individual, not some inevitable reaction to family dynamics, that > led him to become a pompous twit. I also believe that Percy has > the choice to return to his family and provide a real service for > the Order (and I think he may very well do this in the end.) > > But so far, what makes the similarities between Ron and Percy so > important -and I believe the case for their similarities was very > strongly presented - what makes these similarities so important is > how the brothers use these similarities to create such different > personalities. The idea that both of these Weasleys have taken their > analogous character traits and behaved so differently makes a > fantastic parallel to Harry and Tom Riddle. Carol responds: I agree that the differences are at least as important as the similarities. Percy has a lot of self-control (he's most likeable when he loses it, as when he runs out to hug Ron after fearing that he had drowned in the second task in Gof); Ron has almost none. Granted, he forces himself to do things he's terrified of, like facing the spiders in the Forbidden Forest, but he also frequently loses his temper, as Percy almost never does (which makes his fight with his father in OoP so shocking). Their approval-seeking is also different. Percy seeks it from adults by working hard and using his intelligence to get twelve OWLs and I forget how many NEWTs. (Having a high IQ is not the same as having common sense, which he conspicuously lacks.) He wants and expects to become a prefect and later Head Boy because in his own mind he deserves it, and he's probably correct. Ron, in contrast, is shocked and flattered that he's been chosen Prefect. He never really acts the part (he certaiinly never polishes his Prefect badge or pins it to his pajamas), in part because he's been brainwashed by the twins into believing that only prats become prefects. He works hard as Keeper (after the twins are gone) but not at his studies. If Head Boy is primarily an academic honor, as I suspect it is, it's likely to go to someone other than Ron, and he's more likely to earn three OWLs like the twins than twelve like Percy. What Ron values is the approval of his peers, mainly Harry (and perhaps Hermione--I'm not sure at this point), but also his classmates in general. When Sirius Black tears up his bedclothes with a knife and later when he spends an hour under water with the merpeople, he revels in the attention. The sarcastic singing of "Weasley Is Our King" by the Slytherins, OTOH, torments him much more than the Slytherin badges reading "Potter Stinks!" bother Harry. How Percy would have reacted in a similar situation I don't know, but he probably would have been much more seriously troubled by the disapproval of a teacher. Percy values grades (marks) and rules; Ron sets little stake by either; in that respect, he's much more like the twins. Percy may well be the dysfunctional "good boy" that bboy (Steve) suggest he is; Ron, OTOH, is just an average kid with two serious character flaws, a bad temper and the stubborn streak he shares with Percy. Add to that the disadvantages of poverty and five older brothers and Ron has, as JKR would say, a lot on his plate. But like most people (even Percy), he has virtues to counter his flaws. He's brave in his own way and he's loyal in a pinch. I don't think we'll see him fight with Harry again, nor do I think he'll break with his family as Percy did. In the end, friendship and family are what matter most to Ron. They're what he will fight for when the time comes for a showdown with Voldemort and the DEs. Percy loves his family, too, as his reaction to Ron's rescue in the second task shows. I only hope that his love of family will win out over his ambition and stubborn pride in the next two books. If so, the similarities between Ron and Percy will be more important than the differences. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 05:58:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:58:11 -0000 Subject: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" wrote: > > Berit replies: > > > DD says Voldemort fears the mysterious force in the MoM-room. But > how can Voldemort fear what he seems to have used the better part of > his life to get: immortality/everlasting life? Have you thought of an > explanation to this seeming discrepancy? > > > {Anne Responds} > > Hmmmmm...I can see (I think) What Kneasy is getting out...and also > what Berit is getting....just to play Devil's Advocate here, though... > > What is Voldemort really after? 'Life'? Sort of...but then, with > normal, everyday 'life'...there is always Death to follow. Even > Phoenix's 'die'--rebrithing from the ashes young and anew. > > Voldemort is looking for a way out of that natural cycle--not so much > Life, as the cessation, in his case, of the eventuality of > Death....which in turn, if you ask a lot of philospher types, argue > that Life itself looses its meaning...and is essentally no longer > life, because it is lacking it's counter balance in > death...bascially, you stagnate after awhile (You see this theme in a > lot of 'immortal' stories--everything becomes the same after > awhile....)and 'die' internally, even though your body still lives on > (Essentiually, you loose your soul, your emotions, your humanity). > > So what he's really seeking is to escape the natural order of things-- > Life being one of them (Because after Life comes Death)...so I can > see where Life (in it's original form) would be something everyone > has, something Voldy would fear (in it's natural form), and something > that could very well tip the balance. After all, if Voldemort is > gifted with the Life in that room (which would be the natural, > balanced version)...what would happen to him? After all, he > has 'lived' far beyond his natural time by now...so...he might > gain "real' Life if he went into that room, only to loose it > instantly--because Death has been waiting for him for so long, in > order to rebalance the scales... > Carol: I was with you up to this point, but Voldemort is only about 65 in OoP, early middle age by wizard standards. Maybe he's used up some of his natural life through his transformations, not to mention drinking unicorn blood, though maybe that affected only Quirrell. But as far as his life in wizard years is concerned, he's nowhere near the end of it. he's close in age to Hagrid, who appears to be in the prime of life, younger than McGonagall, and far younger (by some 85 years) than sprightly old Dumbledore. So unless he has somehow used up his span of years, what would probably happen if he encountered Life as you define it is that he would become Tom Riddle, dark wizard, age 65. Carol From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jan 22 06:01:50 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:01:50 -0000 Subject: Would a pensieve be classified as a "dark" object? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "malaprop2000" wrote: > Or is it just a "high-galleon item?" > > What I think I know: > > As far as I can tell from the books, there is only one pensieve at > Hogwarts. It belongs to Dumbledore and is loaned to Snape for Harry's > Occlumency lessons. Of course, the latter half of the sentence is > based on Harry's assumption that it is the same pensieve - OOP, page > 529 (US edition) - and, as we all know, Harry's assumptions are not > always correct. At no point are we told by JKR that it is the only > one. IMHO, it would be an indispensable item for a spy: Buy this NOW > and get those traitorous memories out of your head BEFORE you apparate > to a meeting. Malfoy would find it useful, too. If it is the same pensieve, aside from the fact that both are continually referred to as Dumbledore's pensieve in the narration, we don't really know who owns it, either. It could very well be that it is Snapes pensieve, and that Dumbledore was borrowing it, or it could be for use of any of the Hogwarts staff, at need. It strikes me that it would be more useful for Snape then DD, both for the reason you just mentioned (traitorous memories), and for after DE meetings (Snape could put the memory of the meeting into the pensieve, and go over it with DD... --Arcum From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Thu Jan 22 06:27:18 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:27:18 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Sigh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89359 "Robert Jones" wrote: > Can someone explain the significance of the sigh to me? Not being a > 15 year old girl, I don't understand. > > It could mean: > > (1) She thinks Ron is worse at expressing his feelings towards her, > and she wishes Ron were better at it. > > (2) Ron has been expressing his feelings toward her, and she wishes > he would stop annoying her because she is not interested. > > (3) Ron has been expressing his feelings toward her, and she likes > it and wants him to actually do something about it.. > > (4) She wishes Harry would be "worse than" Ron here and express his > feelings about her. > > (5) She thinks all boys are jerks when it comes to expressing > feelings. > > Any other possibilities? Help. Arya now: And this is the crux of the whole debate. It could indeed mean any one of these things, or, even a mixture of several combined. Hormones. Nothing you can read in a book makes *them* go away. From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Thu Jan 22 06:29:15 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:29:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the locked room? References: Message-ID: <005301c3e0b1$0ec30180$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89360 Carol: I was with you up to this point, but Voldemort is only about 65 in OoP, early middle age by wizard standards. Maybe he's used up some of his natural life through his transformations, not to mention drinking unicorn blood, though maybe that affected only Quirrell. But as far as his life in wizard years is concerned, he's nowhere near the end of it. he's close in age to Hagrid, who appears to be in the prime of life, younger than McGonagall, and far younger (by some 85 years) than sprightly old Dumbledore. So unless he has somehow used up his span of years, what would probably happen if he encountered Life as you define it is that he would become Tom Riddle, dark wizard, age 65 {Anne} Well, if we go by the possible age span of a wizard, that's correct...however, Voldemort has "Died" a few times already--when Harry the infant backfired his spell on him, when he lost Quirrel's host body, the destruction of his forming body when Harry stabs his diary with the basilisk tooth...and so forth. Now he's in a new body--or is that a 'remake' of his old one from the grave? Point is, he has already died, repeatedly in fact....but is still around. Definetly braking the rules of Life and Death, so I would think that yes, he has indeed used up his span of years...he should be long dead--whether because he was killed or died naturally is sort of a moot point in his case. His 'natural' span was already ended. From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Thu Jan 22 06:38:21 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:38:21 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89361 "Dave" wrote: > After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least twice), I cannot > understand why, a senior ministry employee, like Umbride, would > resort to sending the Dementors to 'Kiss' Harry. I know the reason > she gives, in chapters 32 and 33, (paraphrasing) that she wanted to > help her boss, the Minister of Magic, but would there not be > reprecusions for such action. The equivilent of the death penalty > for being awkward and inconvienient sent on a teenage boy, Harry > Potter, without a trial etc. > Is there something else I'm missing? > Dave ---------------------------------- Imperius is always a possibility. Lupin says in OotP (UK Adult Ed p89): "...most of the wizarding community are completely unaware anything's happened, and that makes them easy targets for Death Eaters if they're using the Imperius Curse." That comment tells us two things: It's easier to fight Imperius if you know it might be a possibility. (Every wizard's mental note to self: be suspicious of sudden, floating feelings of bliss and commanding voices in head.) Lupin's comment also hints that the Year of Denial is likely to have had *someone* under Imperius. We know about Bode but it's a distinct possibility (and I think likely) there were more. Arya (wondering how often Imprius has to be cast to completely control someone on an ongoing basis....for research purposes only, of course...) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 07:31:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:31:45 -0000 Subject: The Potters' grave and non-domestic elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89362 > > Peter: > > I regret that I cannot give you the exact point of that quote > > but in GoF or (more probably) OotP, Draco tells his mates that his > > mother now had to do all the housework by herself. So I assumed there > > aren't any more elves in the Malfoy Manson. > > > bboy_mn: > > I would very much like to see that quote, because I don't remember it > from any of the books. Of course, I don't have the greatest memory, > but none the less, I still have my doubts. > > If Dobby was the only Malfoy Elf, why wouldn't Malfoys just go down to > the House-Elf Relocation Office (it's really, I didn't make it up) and > get a new house-elf? > > Certainly, someone as rich and powerful as Lucius wouldn't have a > problem getting a new elf. Personally, although I can't back it up > with data from the book, I suspect they had more than one elf. Carol: I don't remember the quote about Narcissa doing housework (I can't imagine her actually doing so), but Draco does say in PoA that Lupin "dresses like our old house-elf" (141). Since Dobby no longer works for the Malfoys, Draco might mean "our former house-elf" (i.e., they no longer have a house-elf) or he might mean that they now have an elderly house-elf who isn't Dobby. At any rate, it appears that they have, at most, only one house-elf at that point. Maybe they don't want a house-elf who hasn't served the Malfoys or the Blacks for centuries. Possibly they'll end up with Kreacher, though clearly it isn't Kreacher who's being refered to here; he's still at 12 Grimauld Place. Carol, who isn't too worried about poor Narcissa getting rough hands from doing housework. She has a wand, after all. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 07:45:07 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:45:07 -0000 Subject: a bit o' R/H analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorapye" wrote: Dorapye: > Immediately I read that, I was reminded of the scene when they first > meet aboard the Hogwarts Express - Hermione says to Ron as she > leaves the compartment (he's seen her off with his rudeness) > > "And you've got dirt on your nose by the way, did you know?" > > I always wondered what the point of that remark was - it doesn't fit > as a "Well, sod you!" kind of retort, as I can't believe Ron would > be really that bothered about dirt on his nose. But what it does do > is have Hermione repeating Mrs Weasley's last interaction with her > youngest son.... Geoff: I don't see any rudeness on Ron's part in the /first/ meeting. If anything, Hermione is rude in her dismissive comment about Ron's spell. "'Are you sure that's a real spell?' said the girl. 'Well, it's not very good, is it?' (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters" p.79 UK edition) She then rabbits on about having tried a few spells, learned all the set books off by heart and then tells Harry that he's in all the books. "'Am I?' said Harry, feeling dazed. 'Goodness, didn't you know?'" (same page) ..which is a trifle patronising if anything. The only comment Ron makes at this point is that he hopes that Hermione is not in the same house as him - and that is /after/ she leaves the compartment with Neville in tow. It is on the second occasion, she comes back in and starts trying to organise and Ron asks her to leave while they change that he scowls; but she hasn't exactly been reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People" has she? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 07:51:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:51:59 -0000 Subject: Will Harry lose his powers was Re: What's in the locked room? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89364 Ali wrote:- >> Another possible fate which awaits Harry is the Kiss. The Kiss is > presented as something which is worse than death. By taking the > soul away, and leaving someone with no sense of self, it would appear that the victim is denied an afterlife. JKR does not spell this > out. But if the victim continues to exist, but can then die and enjoy > the afterlife, the Kiss wouldn't seem to be such a terrible trauma.>> Carol: On the contrary, Lupin and others take pains to indicate that the Kiss is worse than death because the person who is kissed has lost his soul. Not only can he never live again, except as a soulless body without human emotion or memory, but his death when it happens won't be "the next great adventure." It will be the death of an empty body only. Nothingness, absence--no afterlife, no joining with loved ones, not even cold or darkness. The soul is gone for ever, absorbed into the soulless being of the dementor. The body decomposes. Nothing is left. Nothing. I didn't want that fate for Sirius even when I thought he was a murderer. I certainly don't want it for Harry. The only character for whom a Dementor's Kiss would be a fitting end is Voldemort. Carol From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 22 04:05:22 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:05:22 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89365 --- "Dave" wrote: > After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least twice), I cannot > understand why, a senior ministry employee, like Umbride, would > resort to sending the Dementors to 'Kiss' Harry. I know the reason > she gives, in chapters 32 and 33, (paraphrasing) that she wanted to > help her boss, the Minister of Magic, but would there not be > reprecusions for such action. The equivilent of the death penalty > for being awkward and inconvienient sent on a teenage boy, Harry > Potter, without a trial etc. > Is there something else I'm missing? > Dave THANK YOU for bringing this up! It has bothered me for a very long time. As some people have expressed previously, it did not sit well with me that Umbridge just waltzed out of Hogwartz with out any apparent consequences for her horrid behavior. I would love for Book six to open with a new trial in front of the Wizengamot with the toad wringing her hands as the charges are read against her (no bow this time just messy hair and bad shoes). My vision of the end of this hearing is Harry breaking her wand in half and sending her off to clean bedpans in the werewolf ward. Or perhaps a permanent post in the Forbidden Forest as the Centaur liaison.... ;) Hoping for justice, Sue From RACH911 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 08:16:34 2004 From: RACH911 at aol.com (rach9112000) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:16:34 -0000 Subject: Neville and thestrals. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89367 I might be making something out of nothing here but even on first reading of the book I had some doubt as to the reason Neville gave for being able to see the thestrals. When Umbridge asks Neville "Whom did you see die?", he replies, "My...my grandad." (Chapter 21, US version pg 449). We all know from OotP that Neville still has a crucial role to play in the series and I have discussed before my support for the theory that he is a victim of a heavy dose of memory charms (an explanation for his extreme forgetfulness and clumsiness). I think he knows (or at least prior to the memory charms, knew) quite a bit of information that someone needed to cover up. Maybe about Voldemort or the Death Eaters or the death of Harry's parents. I think there's a chance that the death that Neville experienced in order to make him capable of seeing the thestrals may not really be his grandad. A memory charm is capabe of wiping someone's memory but it can't wipe away the fact that the experience itself occurred which would explain why Neville is still able to see the thestrals. I'm not sure if there's more canon to support this but if anyone knows of any, I'd like to know. Thanks, Rachel. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 22 10:02:21 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:02:21 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89368 I have been wondering lately about what happened in the one before last of Harry's Occlumency lessons. There, Harry casts a Shield Charm and the result is he gets to see some of Snape's memories. What I find strange is that something like a simple (?) Shield Charm should permit Harry to get inside Snape's mind. I think that is strangely in contradiction with the repeated qualification of Snape as a superb Occlumens. Even if Harry's Shield Charm made Snape's spell bounce off and caused him to be hit by his own Legilimenting spell, it still seems to me that it should be a piece of cake for Lord Thingy (an expert Legilimens, better at it than Snape) to break into his sneaky ex- servant's mind. So can Snape really rely on this Occlumency business? Or does anyone have an alternative explanation for what happened? Yours severely, Sigune From paulag5777 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 10:36:25 2004 From: paulag5777 at yahoo.com (Paula Gaon) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:36:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) Message-ID: <20040122103625.89999.qmail@web40007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89369 22January2004 Betta smaragdina wrote: "Interesting. Remember in COS when Draco says "Peter Weasley" and Harry/Ron in disguise correct him, and Draco is like, "whatever..." ?" Paula now: This IS interesting, smaragdina, but inspite of searching, can't find this reference. In which context did this happen? Sounds very reasonable though since JKR had told us that COS is loaded with clues and that she almost gave something away in the book. Paula Gaon Please visit Beautiful and Fun Things: http://alumni.austincollege.edu/pgaon/ "...Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Jan 22 10:47:00 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:47:00 EST Subject: Dementor's Kiss and WW beliefs (was: Will Harry lose his powers) Message-ID: <15.20e36263.2d410424@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89370 > Carol: > On the contrary, Lupin and others take pains to indicate that the Kiss > is worse than death because the person who is kissed has lost his > soul. Not only can he never live again, except as a soulless body > without human emotion or memory, but his death when it happens won't > be "the next great adventure." It will be the death of an empty body > only. Nothingness, absence--no afterlife, no joining with loved ones, > not even cold or darkness. The soul is gone for ever, absorbed into > the soulless being of the dementor. The body decomposes. Nothing is > left. Nothing. > > I didn't want that fate for Sirius even when I thought he was a > murderer. I certainly don't want it for Harry. The only character for > whom a Dementor's Kiss would be a fitting end is Voldemort. Yes. Interesting thoughts. Of course we don't really know what the WW as a whole believes happens after death. Dumbledore expresses his Peter Pan like faith in death as the next great adventure but we have no indication as to whether wizards as a whole believe in an afterlife (although I guess this is perhaps, though not necessarily, indicated by talk of the soul) or what should happen in that afterlife. For instance if there is any belief in judgment, or of the soul getting what it deserves in the next life, then oblivion might be a better option particularly for someone like Voldemort. Many, many people in RL contentedly exist with the idea of death as oblivion. As far as punishment goes, I've always thought that in some ways to be kissed and fall into oblivion is more merciful than to be incarcerated in Azkaban for a lingering descent into madness and death. Unless there is hope of some redemption after that death, or life simply carries on in another dimension with as many opportunities for the wicked as for the virtuous as in this world. On a different level, we know that the Dementors represent and grew out of JKR's own experience of depression. I suppose that the Dementor's Kiss represents that depth of depression where individuality and feeling is sucked from one, the point where death seems preferable to life. In a way, I think that the Kiss is the extension of a metaphor which possibly gives rise to a slight anomoly when we treat it as a "real" thing in the context of the story. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amani at charter.net Thu Jan 22 11:38:42 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:38:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about thestrals References: Message-ID: <002501c3e0dc$49e0c4c0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89371 Patty: I'm sorry if this was asked before, but I was wondering why Harry couldn't see the thestrals after Quirrell died and only could see them after Cedric died. I thought he had seen Quirrell die, thus being able to see the thestrals in his 2nd year. Taryn He didn't see Quirrel die. "He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down...down...down..." (US paperback, pg. 295) So he was passed out before Dumbledore came in. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 13:28:00 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:28:00 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: <20040122103625.89999.qmail@web40007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Paula Gaon wrote: Betta smaragdina: > > "Interesting. Remember in COS when Draco says "Peter Weasley" and > Harry/Ron in disguise correct him, and Draco is like, "whatever..." ?" Paula: > This IS interesting, smaragdina, but inspite of searching, can't find this reference. In which context did this happen? Sounds very reasonable though since JKR had told us that COS is loaded with clues and that she almost gave something away in the book. Geoff: It's when Harry and Ron are disguised as Crabbe and Goyle and have met Draco. They are accosted by Percy who, as a Prefect, is on patrol duty. "Malfoy glanced witheringly at Percy. 1And what're you doing down here, Weasley?' he sneered. Percy looked outraged. 'You want to show a bit more respect to a school Prefect!' he said. 'I don't like your attitude!' Malfoy sneered and motioned Harry and Ron to follow him. Harry almost said something apologetic to Percy but caught himself just in time. He and Ron hurried after Malfoy who said as they turned into the next passage, 'That Peter Weasley =' 'Percy,' Ron corrected hin automatically. 'Whatever,' said Malfoy......" (COS "The Polyjuice Potion" pp.164-65 UK edition) From CoyotesChild at charter.net Thu Jan 22 14:30:19 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:30:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville and thestrals. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e0f4$42c821c0$18667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89373 > Rachel > I might be making something out of nothing here but even on first > reading of the book I had some doubt as to the reason Neville gave > for being able to see the thestrals. When Umbridge asks Neville > "Whom did you see die?", he replies, "My...my grandad." (Chapter 21, > US version pg 449). > We all know from OotP that Neville still has a crucial role to > play in the series and I have discussed before my support for the > theory that he is a victim of a heavy dose of memory charms (an > explanation for his extreme forgetfulness and clumsiness). I think > he knows (or at least prior to the memory charms, knew) quite a bit > of information that someone needed to cover up. Maybe about > Voldemort or the Death Eaters or the death of Harry's parents. > I think there's a chance that the death that Neville experienced > in order to make him capable of seeing the thestrals may not really > be his grandad. A memory charm is capabe of wiping someone's memory > but it can't wipe away the fact that the experience itself occurred > which would explain why Neville is still able to see the thestrals. > I'm not sure if there's more canon to support this but if anyone > knows of any, I'd like to know. Thanks, Rachel. > Iggy here: Kinda makes me wonder if Neville and Harry are really twins, but Neville happened to be hiding under the bed or something... then Dumbledore modified his memory and the Longbottoms adopted him. This would explain why Voldemort might not have known about Neville's real relationship to Harry... It might also explain Neville's bad memory. After all, who knows the effect of the charm in an infant's mind. Harry might not have needed his memory revised because he was taken in by true family, where Neville wasn't. Voldemort and the DEs may have been tortured because he knew there was someone else out there, but not who...and he knew that the Longbottoms knew who... Petunia and Vernon either might not remember Neville because of a memory charm, or simply because they didn't care enough to remember him. If you look at the resemblance between Harry and Neville (especially in the movies, and JKR may have made sure that they looked just enough alike) then they *could* be separated twins. There's also the possibility that they were deliberately separated shortly after birth to make sure at least one of them survived, this may have still required a memory charm... Just a thought... Iggy McSnurd From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 14:57:32 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:57:32 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dave" wrote: Dave: > After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least twice), I cannot > understand why, a senior ministry employee, like Umbride, would > resort to sending the Dementors to 'Kiss' Harry. I know the reason > she gives, in chapters 32 and 33, (paraphrasing) that she wanted to > help her boss, the Minister of Magic, but would there not be > reprecusions for such action. The equivilent of the death penalty > for being awkward and inconvienient sent on a teenage boy, Harry > Potter, without a trial etc. > Is there something else I'm missing? Geoff: The more I think over this, the more I am convinced that Umbridge thinks on the hoof. Her reactions (including the Decrees) are often hurried and badly thought out and my reaction to Dave's remarks was "What the heck did the woman think she was trying to do?" What would have happened if the Dementors had succeeded and Harry had received the Kiss? In the Real World, we would have had the local paper reporting that a youth (or even youths?) had been discovered comatose; the condition had doctors baffled. Quite what Vernon and Petunia's reaction would be is open to speculation. Knowing that the house was under observation, members of the Order would have latched onto the tragedy pretty quickly. Would they have recognised it as the result of a Dementor's Kiss? So, it would not go unnoticed in the Wizarding World. Even if the Prophet was running headlines "Harry Potter Missing" and finding ways of making snide comments about his apparent problems, things would leak into the open. Fortunately, it didn't happen but it would have opened an interesting can of worms for our dearly beloved DJU. From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 15:13:59 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:13:59 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89375 Hi all, Tonya Here: After the lastest rereading of POA (I have lost count on how many times I have read the series) and new quesiton occured to me about the map. When Lupin showed up in the shack he said he had been watching the map because he thought that they (Harry, Hermione & Ron) were going to go see Hagrid right... ok at the same time Harry and Hermione were also on their way to save Buckbeak after using the timeturner. SOOOOO will Harry and Hermione show up twice on the map?? "Because the Marauder's Map never lies" Quote Lupin POA (page 295 I think, don't have the books at work) What do you think?? I think they showed up twice, Lupin was focused on the original set of Harry and Hermione. Tonya From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 15:21:42 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:21:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040122152142.30094.qmail@web11309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89376 --- Dave wrote: > After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least > twice), I cannot > understand why, a senior ministry employee, like > Umbride, Now, Rolshan (me): DU's motives are very difficult to read for everything she does. Is it really possible (as Serius thought) that she is just a horrible human being insanely dedicated to Ministry's goals, combined with prejudice against "halfbreeds". Just barely... But think how incredibly helpful to V a murder of Harry Potter would have been. Or expelling Trelawney from the school where she is protected from DE's attempts to find out what the prophecy was or finding out about any new prophecies. Also it seems clear that she knows about Hagrid's trip to the giants...in the Hagrid's Tale (or should it have been Hagrid's Tail as Galdriel Waters says?) chapter, she makes this clear with her references to the mountains, etc. Yet Hagrid thinks it was DE's tailing him and DEs dealing with the giants. So how did she find out? Was the ministry tailing him and mdm Olympe too, if so why on earth? Or did she know from DE's???????????????????// ROLSHAN __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From grace701 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 15:31:57 2004 From: grace701 at yahoo.com (grace701) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:31:57 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: <001001c3dfb0$0e49edb0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89377 Helen R. Granberry aka Lizard Laugh wrote: > Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling > than their gifts to her. Sure, we know Ron has a thing for her > (and the gift of perfume very sweetly illustrated that) and Harry > did indeed put thought into his gift (whatever his motives), but > Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not playing favorites? > Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will tell ;) If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p Grace From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 22 15:37:45 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:37:45 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Sigh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" wrote: > In OOTP, ch. 26, p. 572 (US ed.), Hermione is explaining Harry's problem with Cho to him, and says that he should tell Cho that he thinks Hermione is ugly. He says he doesn't think she's ugly and then Hermione says he's worse than Ron and sighs ". . . maybe not" as Ron walks in. > > Can someone explain the significance of the sigh to me? Not being a 15 year old girl, I don't understand. Well, full disclosure, it's a long time since I was fifteen. But what I thought was significant was that she first laughs "Harry, you're worse than Ron," and then sighs "Well, no you're not," as she sees Ron stumping into the Hall, "splattered with mud and looking grumpy." I think she's sighing over the fact that neither boy seems to have the emotional intelligence of a doorknob or to have read the manual as far as courtship is concerned. She thought she was making some progress with Ron when he gave her the perfume, but Ron is obviously still losing his head on the Quidditch field *and* he hasn't cleaned himself up before meeting Hermione at dinner. Hermione's a girl who wants to be courted, IMO. She doesn't have quite the confidence that Cho does to cut her fella out of the herd and rope him, so to speak. I think it is jealousy of this ability, rather than a desire for Harry per se, that led her to sabotage Cho's date though perhaps she'd like to elicit a little romantic interest from Harry, just to prove to herself that she has what it takes. Pippin From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Jan 22 16:08:04 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:08:04 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Percy values > grades (marks) and rules; Ron sets little stake by either; in that > respect, he's much more like the twins. > > Percy may well be the dysfunctional "good boy" that bboy (Steve) > suggest he is; Ron, OTOH, is just an average kid with two serious > character flaws, a bad temper and the stubborn streak he shares with > Percy. Add to that the disadvantages of poverty and five older > brothers and Ron has, as JKR would say, a lot on his plate. But like > most people (even Percy), he has virtues to counter his flaws. He's > brave in his own way and he's loyal in a pinch. I don't think we'll > see him fight with Harry again, nor do I think he'll break with his > family as Percy did. In the end, friendship and family are what matter > most to Ron. They're what he will fight for when the time comes for a > showdown with Voldemort and the DEs. Percy loves his family, too, as > his reaction to Ron's rescue in the second task shows. I only hope > that his love of family will win out over his ambition and stubborn > pride in the next two books. If so, the similarities between Ron and > Percy will be more important than the differences. Do you really think that Ron's got more of a "bad temper" than either Harry or Hermione? I do hear this idea pretty often and would agree that he was pretty quick tempered in GoF, but my impression was that he had the most self-control of the trio by OOP. I'm not saying that he doesn't have flaws (all three kids certainly do), but he seemed to have outgrown the bad temper by his fifth year. As for the stubborn streak, is *anyone* more stubborn than Harry? Possibly Hermione who is still pursuing her SPEW project in spite of a total lack of success, but Harry seems to be the one digging in his heels the most. I do think that both Ron and Percy are deeply insecure although it manifests itself in nearly opposite ways with Percy being almost maniacal about following rules and working toward being the perfect ministry employee, and Ron's tendency to avoid effort for fear of failure. In OOP we get to see Ron make some real progress toward overcoming his insecurity, which is something that Percy has not yet managed as of the book's end. It'll be interesting to see if and how he deals with this issue before the end of the series. Jo S. From vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com Thu Jan 22 16:24:29 2004 From: vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com (vecseytj) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:24:29 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: <20040122152142.30094.qmail@web11309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Regina Olshan wrote: > > --- Dave wrote: > > After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least > > twice), I cannot > > understand why, a senior ministry employee, like > > Umbride, > > Now, Rolshan (me): > But think how incredibly helpful to V a murder of > Harry Potter would have been. Or expelling Trelawney > from the school where she is protected from DE's > attempts to find out what the prophecy was or finding > out about any new prophecies. > > Also it seems clear that she knows about Hagrid's trip > to the giants...in the Hagrid's Tale (or should it > have been Hagrid's Tail as Galdriel Waters says?) > chapter, she makes this clear with her references to > the mountains, etc. Yet Hagrid thinks it was DE's > tailing him and DEs dealing with the giants. So how > did she find out? Was the ministry tailing him and mdm > Olympe too, if so why on earth? Or did she know from > DE's???????????????????// > > ROLSHAN Now me Vecsey: I have just been listening to OOTP on tape (i read it and now i'm just listening), but, I have come to the same conclustion about Umbridge that she knew too much. She tried to kick out ST and she did kick out Hagrid, she implied Giants to Hagrid. While Harry is under the invisibality cloak in Hagrids house, the first time Umbridge meets Hagrid. and WHY did she hate Trelayney so much? She isn't a half breed, it just didn't add up. She was trying to kill Harry with the dememtors, and she is (I think) in leage with LV. What did it for me was when she was going to use the Curcio on Harry to get him to tell her who he was talking to in the fire in her office. She was enjoying herself. She talked herself into it. Not like the imperious curse where you do what you are told, No she was having a really good time. Maybe old Lord Thingy had told her that she would still be in power at the M of Magic and if she would just help him out a little bit. I'm waiting for book 6. I think there is going to be a day in court, and I think THAT is how Arthur is going to get to be Minister of Magic. I think DU is going to bring down Fudge really quickly. And somehow, maybe Albus is going to suggest Mr. Weasley for the post! Hummm can't wait to see.. Tj From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 16:40:27 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:40:27 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (and other Weasleys) (long...) In-Reply-To: <20040122103625.89999.qmail@web40007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89381 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Paula Gaon wrote: > 22January2004 > > Betta smaragdina wrote: > > "Interesting. Remember in COS when Draco says "Peter Weasley" and > Harry/Ron in disguise correct him, and Draco is like, "whatever..." ?" > > Paula now: > > This IS interesting, smaragdina, but inspite of searching, can't find this reference. In which context did this happen? Sounds very reasonable though since JKR had told us that COS is loaded with clues and that she almost gave something away in the book. > > Paula Gaon So sorry! I didn't have my book on hand, of course. Polyjuiced Ron and Harry are appearing as Crabbe and Goyle, and Draco is complaining about Percy whom he has run into near the Slytherin Common Room (we later find out, supposedly, Percy was there on a tryst with Penelope). Betta smaragdina From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 22 17:32:44 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:32:44 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89382 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > I have been wondering lately about what happened in the one before > last of Harry's Occlumency lessons. There, Harry casts a Shield Charm > and the result is he gets to see some of Snape's memories. What I > find strange is that something like a simple (?) Shield Charm should > permit Harry to get inside Snape's mind. I think that is strangely in > contradiction with the repeated qualification of Snape as a superb > Occlumens. > > Even if Harry's Shield Charm made Snape's spell bounce off and caused > him to be hit by his own Legilimenting spell, it still seems to me > that it should be a piece of cake for Lord Thingy (an expert > Legilimens, better at it than Snape) to break into his sneaky ex- > servant's mind. So can Snape really rely on this Occlumency business? > Or does anyone have an alternative explanation for what happened? NOW Siriusly Snapey Susan: I hesitate to say this to the whole list, because I think a lot of people get sick of those of us who think Harry is "gifted" with special talent & abilities, but that's how I would explain it. I mean, had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just somehow know to use it? Whether shown or not, it was apparently a very strong charm to have caused this effect which Snape didn't expect. I just think Harry is a VERY POWERFUL wizard...maybe even more powerful than Voldy [hence his ability to hold on/"win" the connected wands duel], and that explains why it affected Snape as it did. Siriusly Snapey Susan...who's open to other interpretations, but this is what she currently believes. :-) From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 17:41:59 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:41:59 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89383 Hi all, Let me begin by immediately stating I do not for one moment believe Dolores Umbridge is a Death Eater or a supporter of Voldemort. If in the next book, JKR explicitly states Umbridge is a DE, then I will believe it. It will make me very, very unhappy if she takes Umbridge in that direction because making every evil character (yes, I think Umbridge is evil...and horrible, nasty, repulsive, hateful, cruel, and not a little bit stupid) a supporter of LV is a cheap trick and not representative of real life, which JKR seems to like to mirror in many respects. Umbridge and Fudge are a different kind of threat than LV. Making either of them anything other than LV's unwitting puppets does not do justice to the Potterverse. I don't know if I'm expressing this properly, but it's one of the few theories that I actually feel rather strongly about. Anyway, on with the post! Just so you all know, I'm going to be mixing up the order of the previous posts a bit so I can address things Rolshan and Vecsey both brought up all at once. Rolshan wrote: > > But think how incredibly helpful to V a murder of > > Harry Potter would have been. Or expelling Trelawney > > from the school where she is protected from DE's > > attempts to find out what the prophecy was or finding > > out about any new prophecies. > > And Vecsey wrote: > She tried to kick out ST and she did kick > out > Hagrid, she implied Giants to Hagrid. While Harry is under the > invisibality cloak in Hagrids house, the first time Umbridge meets > Hagrid. and WHY did she hate Trelayney so much? She isn't a half > breed, it just didn't add up. KathyK replies: As far as the Dementors go, Umbridge was, as she said, doing what no one else at the Ministry was doing. She was acting while the others were discussing. And I don't believe for one moment she did it for any other reason than to protecter her position and the positions of those who support Fudge at the Ministry. Sending the dementors was supposed to be a win-win situation for Umbridge. Either Harry would have to use illegal magic or he would have his soul sucked. Well, we know what happened, but how was Umbridge to know that a squib was there and was going to ruin the whole thing. Without Mrs. Figg, there was no other evidence that dementors were really there. Harry would have lost his hearing. The other side of the coin is that Harry and Dudley would have been kissed. Geoff wrote in 89374: "What would have happened if the Dementors had succeeded and Harry had received the Kiss? In the Real World, we would have had the local paper reporting that a youth (or even youths?) had been discovered comatose; the condition had doctors baffled. Quite what Vernon and Petunia's reaction would be is open to speculation. "Knowing that the house was under observation, members of the Order would have latched onto the tragedy pretty quickly. Would they have recognised it as the result of a Dementor's Kiss? "So, it would not go unnoticed in the Wizarding World. Even if the Prophet was running headlines "Harry Potter Missing" and finding ways of making snide comments about his apparent problems, things would leak into the open. Fortunately, it didn't happen but it would have opened an interesting can of worms for our dearly beloved DJU." KathyK: If Harry was soul-sucked, it's possible that not only he and Dudley would have been victims, but Mrs. Figg as well, thus losing the Order's only witness to the attack. It's my belief the Order would have known/suspected what happened to Harry. But what would they do about it? Would they have believed the Ministry had done it? Or Lord Voldemort? Now, the Order may believe the MoM is responsible, but they may not know who specifically did it. And going around accusing the Ministry of sending dementors after Harry would not be the way to handle the situation. If they did try that tactic, it would just be another instance of Dumbledore being off his rocker, trying to get his hands on the Minister's job. Either way, I think Umbridge sort of knew what she was doing, even if, as Geoff said in a paragraph I snipped, "Umbridge thinks on the hoof." She hadn't considered all the consequences of her actions. I don't believe for one moment that she did it for Voldemort, though. Remember, he's still in hiding, biding his time, gathering followers. It would not behoove him to off Harry so early in his new rise to power, giving away the secret that he's alive. Harming a hair on Harry's head is a sure way at least bring up the possibility that LV had returned, something he didn't want at that point. And onto Trelawney...I don't think Umbridge firing her had anything to do with the prophecy or Voldemort. Surprised? Umbridge likes power, control, and intimidating people. Trelawney is an easy target for her. Umbridge enjoyed evaluating Trelawney, scaring her, screwing up her concentration in lessons, and finally firing her. She took pleasure in it, both because she got to exert her authority over Trelawney, and because she was about to stick it to Dumbledore. Dumbledore, of course, ruined Umbridge's triumphant moment. Yes it's disgusing that she takes pleasure in intimidating and controlling people. It's even a bit evil the way she does it. But it *does not* mean she's a LV supporter. Rolshan wrote: > > Also it seems clear that she knows about Hagrid's trip > > to the giants...in the Hagrid's Tale (or should it > > have been Hagrid's Tail as Galdriel Waters says?) > > chapter, she makes this clear with her references to > > the mountains, etc. Yet Hagrid thinks it was DE's > > tailing him and DEs dealing with the giants. So how > > did she find out? Was the ministry tailing him and mdm > > Olympe too, if so why on earth? Or did she know from > > DE's???????????????????// > > KathyK: Okay, Vecsey brought up the giants in the post as well. If Umbridge is not a Death Eater, how is it she appeared to know just what Hagrid was up to on his little trip? That's easy. A few points to look at can clear this right up, IMO. 1. In the Chapter, "The Parting of the Ways," in GoF, Dumbledore *tells Fudge* he needs to send an envoy to the giants. Fudge thinks this idea is ludicrous. By the end of their meeting, it's quite clear that Fudge doesn't believe Dumbledore-or is too scared to believe him-and therefore would not be doing much of anything to work against a newly born Voldemort, including sending an envoy to the giants. 2. OoP Fudge is working hard to thwart Dumbledore's attempts to warn the WW of LV's return. Now, it's my opinion he truly refuses to see Voldemort's back because he's afraid and power-loving and it would spell disaster for him as Minister if the WW even thought there was a possibility Voldemort had returned. So he turns on Dumbledore instead, viewing him as the threat to his position and the stability of the WW. He knows Dumbledore is up to something and he decides Dumbledore must want control of the WW for himself, that he's building an army to use against Fudge. And Fudge thinks, what did Dumbledore say about the giants? Maybe he'll be trying to persuade them to attack and take over the Ministry. Well, we can't have that. So he's got Umbridge installed at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Dumbledore and Harry and to try and bring them under control. 3. Rita Skeeter kindly blabbed Hagrid's secret about being half giant back in GoF. Fudge and Umbridge are aware of Hagrid's heritage. Imagine how suspicious it looks that Hagrid's gone away somewhere. Hmm...Dumbledore wants to send an envoy to the giants...hmm...Hagrid's half giant...could it be? Well, it's rather obvious I should think. Umbridge seemed to *know* where Hagrid has been because she *did* know. So you see, there's no need for the Ministry to have been tailing Hagrid and there's no need for Umbridge to be a Death Eater to figure out where Hagrid was. Dumbledore pretty much told them. Vecsey wrote: > What did it for me was when she was going to use the Curcio on > Harry > to get him to tell her who he was talking to in the fire in her > office. She was enjoying herself. She talked herself into it. Not > like the imperious curse where you do what you are told, No she was > having a really good time. KathyK: Umbridge is a nasty, nasty woman as I mentioned before. She takes pleasure in exerting power over others. She used that quill Harry...and not just on Harry, either. She made numerous insane decrees aimed at keeping the Hogwarts population under control. She had a lot of fun tormenting Hagrid and Trelawney during their evaluations. Umbridge likes hurting other people. It doesn't mean she has to be a Death Eater. I guess I don't really have much more than that. I just don't see why she would be as she's already got power and prestige. She has the authority to do things like send dementors to Little Whinging without anyone ever knowing it was her- until she stupidly told Harry. She is a bully. She goes after those who will not stand up to her (openly). And when people do stand up to her or show their disdain for her, like McGonagall, she pretty much backs down. Even if she wanted to be, I don't think Umbridge has what it takes to be a Death Eater. KathyK, who, as usual, should be doing other things. But this is so much more fun! From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 17:53:09 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:53:09 -0000 Subject: Occlumency & Shield Charm - Short & Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > ..., Harry casts a Shield Charm and the result is he gets to see > some of Snape's memories. What I find strange is that something like > a simple (?) Shield Charm should permit Harry to get inside Snape's > mind. I think that is strangely in contradiction with the repeated > qualification of Snape as a superb Occlumens. > > Even if Harry's Shield Charm made Snape's spell bounce off and > caused him to be hit by his own Legilimenting spell, it still seems > to me that it should be a piece of cake for Lord Thingy (an expert > Legilimens, better at it than Snape) to break into his sneaky ex- > servant's mind. So can Snape really rely on this Occlumency business? > Or does anyone have an alternative explanation for what happened? > > > Yours severely, > > Sigune bboy_mn: Once again someone has given me an open invitation to expound at length on one of my many theories. However, to save you the agony, I will give you the short version as well as the long. We must, I believe, make a distinction between the Ability of Legilimency and the Spell of Legilimency, which, reasonable so, are related but not necessarily the same thing. (see below for the long winded version). The SPELL causes a cascade of random thought to occur in the victim's mind, random thought that can also be viewed by the caster of the spell. Because this is a spell, it can easily be blocked by the 'Protego' Shield Charm. Remember that the Shield Charm causes the spell to rebound upon the caster. I think Snape was caught totally off guard. Certainly he expected Harry to be able, to some degree, to stop the cascade of thought, but it never occurred to him that Harry would turn the spell back against Snape. Once Snape go over being stunned, both physically and mentally, he put a stop to it, and even, begrudgingly in his own Snape like way, complimented Harry on the use of the Shield Charm. Presumably, before meeting Voldemort or the Death Eaters, Snape has a chance to mentally prepare himself, and focus his mind so he blocks all attempts at being probed. The event with Harry simply cause him off guard. In addition, I think the spell is more powerful, but less useful. It can force the thoughts to come, but the thoughts seem very random making it very difficult to determine truth at that moment in time. The GIFT or ABILITY of Legilimency, I speculate, is more a for of intuitive Psychic ability; a form of Seer Divination. One has an emaphathic sense of the other person's thoughts and feelings. I also speculate that the abilitiy of Legilimency is less visual and more emotional, and also, more realtime than the spell. Conversely the spell we see is much more visual and deals with historical memories rather than 'in the moment' thoughts. For what it's worth, since the Ability of Legilimency is a form of Divination rather than a spell, I don't think the 'Protego' Shield Charm can block it. Does that help at all? Just a thought. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now the extremely long version, compiled from previous posts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Morgan D." wrote: > > "Can anyone explain something to me? > > "Snape says that Legilimency is much more subtle than merely mind- > reading, but I'm afraid I've grasped as much of the subject as Harry > did. The way I understand it, if I were to cast Legilimency over, > say, our dear host Aberforth, right here in the Hog's Head, I'd get > to see images of his past, such as his improper dealings with his > goat, but none of you would see them. The spell wouldn't expose Abe's > mind to everyone around, but only for the one who cast the spell. > > "If that's the case, Legilimency is a sort of mind version of the > Summoning Charm. Like saying 'Accio memory!' Not an attack, in the > sense of hitting someone with something, but a theft. > > "During one of the lessons, Harry casts a Shield Charm -- 'Protego!' - > - to defend himself of Snape's Legilimency, and the result is that > Harry ends up seeing images from Snape's mind. Or at least that seems > to be the case. > > ..edited.... > > > Morgan D. bboy_mn: See my published works... I'm going to repost a few things from the past that do a pretty good job of reflecting my views on Legilimency. In both sections, I have embedded some additional thoughts. FROM- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72153 Legilimency takes two forms in the book. One is the gift or skill of Legilimency and the other is the Legilimens charm. It speculate that the Legilimens charm simply causes a cascade of random memories to flash before the caster and his victim's eyes. I could give you some interesting insight, but it's pretty random, subject to interpretation, and not too good for determining specific real-time immediate thoughts and intent. The gift or skill of Legilimens, on the other hand, is as deep strong psychic intuitive sense of a person's feelings, thoughts, and emotions at the moment. If they are lying, you pick up on the sense of insecurity, guilt, and worry that are in their mind, and the associated feelings of fear in their emotions. Like the Legilimens charm, with the intuitive gift you may also pick up some mental images associated with a persons feelings at that momemnt. I further speculate that, to some extent, the possessor of the gift may be able to guide the nature of the thoughts and feelings coming from the victim using magical intent. Legilimency as a gift is a form of Divination or a psychic skill; in a sense, the person with this gift is an intuitive Seer. I suspect, although obviously I can't prove, that the Spell of Legilimens is stronger on mental images and lesser on conveying emotions, whereas, and equally speculative, the Gift of Legilimens is much stronger on picking up emotions and lesser on mental images; I don't say no mental images, just lesser relative to the spell As a side note, there are all kinds of psychic Seers. Most Psychics are intuitive psychics; they sense things. Others are visionary Psychic; they divine through psychic visions. Still other's like Trelawney are trance psychics. And of course, many other forms. So being an intuitive senser or seer is a valid form of psychic ability, and this is how I see Legilimency. FROM- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jwcpgh" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > Legilimency takes two forms in the book. One is the Gift or Skill > > of Legilimency and the other is the Legilimens charm. > > > > It speculate that the Legilimens charm simply causes a cascade of > > random memories .... edited... > > > > > > The gift or skill of Legilimens, on the other hand, is as deep > > strong psychic intuitive sense of a persons feelings, thoughts, > > and emotions at the moment. ....edited... > > > > Just a thought. > > Laura: > > Your theory is interesting and I'm willing to be convinced, but > could you cite some canon to show which is which? ...edited... > bboy_mn: I don't think it's necessary to cite the book to you if you have read it. Although, I can and will do that if you really want me to. We have two examples of types of Legilimency in the book which demonstrate my theory. The first is Dumbledore's and other's descriptions of the skill of Legilimency for detecting lies. Both Voldemort and Dumbledore have this skill. Then we have the Legilimency classes between Harry and Snape. The examples of the Legilimens charm used in the classes don't seem to be of much use for detecting lies. Snape casts the charm, the cascade of random memories comes spilling out, and when Harry gets to a memory that he doesn't want anyone to see, he forces the cascade to stop. That is the only form that we see the Legilimen charm taking, and we see it repeatedly. Like I said, the charm could give you some insight, but the examples we see seem too random to really determine Harry's thoughts, emotions, and motivations at that given moment. Therefore, I conclude that some general truth could be gathered, and attempts could be made to reconstruct the viewed thoughts into something coherent, and thereby hope to interpret it's meaning, but it all seems to random and generalized to be used to determine if the words just spoken were true. Note that when Harry cast the Protego Shield Charm we know that Harry sees Snape's memories, but we get little or no sense that Harry feels the emotions associated with those memories. It is upon this fact that I base my belief that the Legilimens Spell is more visual than emotional. However, we must also note that in both Harry and Snape's case, the memories are old. Perhaps if the memories were newer and fresher, the associated emotions would be stronger. Now the Gift or Skill of Legilimency can be used to interpret truth, the book tells us this, therefore, I conclude the sensations, the intuitive sense that the Legilimist divines must be more immediate and must be more specific. I base all this not so much on text, although the text strongly implies this, but on a logical conclusion regarding what must occur to accomplish the task at hand. We all have an intuitive sense to help us determine when people are lying. We take our clues from many sources. A gifted Legilimist abilities go far beyond common general intuition; it's not JUST a suspicion or a hunch. As I said, a Legilimist, or Legilimizer, or whatever you want to call him, is a Seer; someone gifted in a specific form of Divination. Someone with a strong psychic sense. So the clues that a Legilimist picks up go much much deeper that our common suspicious muggle intuition. They are people who sense other people's emotions and intent. In addition, in the process of detecting lies, they may even be able to sense some degree of the truth. We see the Legilimens charm repeatedly in the book, and it seems to be just what I said it was. It forces a cascade of random memories, and that doesn't seem at all effective in determining if someone is lying. Since a Legilimist is able to detect lies, he must therefore be able to see and feel more than a random cascade of memories. For me, the logical conclusion is that the Legilimist has a deep strong intuitive psychic sense of a persons emotions and intent at the moment the other person is trying to perpetrate a lie. One last reminder that this skill goes far far deeper than common muggle intuition. Also, I accept that not only are emotions and intent sensed, but there may also be some mental images that accompany this, but I suspect they are specific to the moment and are more of a visual intuitive sense than actual images pulled from the other persons mind. I guess if intuitive psychic doesn't do it for you, you could look at a Legilimist as a psychic empath. They have an empathic psychic insight into the other person's thoughts, intent, and emotions, and are therefore able to detect lies. Regarding your comment about 'accio memories', I think that is a valid illustration, but I don't think it is a good example. True, the Legilimist is summoning thoughts, feelings, and memories from the victim's mind, but because these are all intangible (not solid), I don't think 'accio' would literally work. Legilimens is more of an 'event', the spell or the act causes an event to occur. That event causes thoughts, feeling, and mental images to form both in the mind of the Legilimist and the victim; in a crude way, sort of like two people watching a television. In the Spell/Charm event, both the Legilimist and the victim are well aware that the cascade of thoughts has been initiated. However, in the more realtime exercise of the ability to Legilimize, the event in not so obvious because it is indeed more of a realtime event. It senses the immediate realtime thoughts and emotions of the victim rather that calling up old random memories. That, however, does not deny the ability of the gifted Legilimist to will the mind probe to focus on past events. It just implies that his intuition would give him insight into the immediate feeling related to those event. Perhaps, daily news vs a history book might be a good analogy. As to the 'Protego' charm, this is a shield charm, it surrounds a person with a shield that will cause all but the most powerful spells to rebound upon the caster. Snape cast the Legilimens charm and it was rebounded upon himself, just as any other spell would have. However, my intuitive sense tells me that the act of Legilimens, as opposed to the casting of the spell, would not have been blocked by this Shield Charm. Again, it's just a thought. bboy_mn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 17:57:58 2004 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:57:58 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" wrote: > After the lastest rereading of POA [a] new quesiton occured to me about the map. When Lupin showed up in the shack he said he had been watching the map because he thought that they (Harry, Hermione & Ron) were going to go see Hagrid right... ok at the same time Harry and Hermione were also on their way to save Buckbeak after using the timeturner. SOOOOO will Harry and Hermione show up twice on the map?? "Because the Marauder's Map never lies" Quote Lupin POA (page 295 I think, don't have the books at work) What do you think?? I think they showed up twice, Lupin was focused on the original set of Harry and Hermione. Tonya Talisman, setting aside some little wizard marionettes, replies: I like your observation Tonya. Subject to my beliefs about time travel (post # 79635) But, I certainly do think Lupin would have seen two sets of Harry and Hermione. And, I think he did. And, I don't think it surprised him, because,like Snape, he is old Order and an active agent of Dumbledore's. And, this is fine example of Dumbledore's management of events. Let's back up a little. There are at least 11 days between the time Lupin confiscates the map (POA, U.S. edition, p.290) and the date scheduled for Buckbeak's execution. Harry's Quidditch euphoria lasts a week (p.314) during which they practice for exams, and his last exams and the hearing/execution date occur on Thursday of the following week (pp. 318-20, 327.) I find it hard to believe that during those ~11 days Lupin didn't spend time looking at the map, including specifically checking out HRH (with Pettigrew in tow) and Gryffindor tower. This out of sheer nostalgia, if not for security purposes. And yet, he gives no indication of seeing this supposedly dead friend and hero of the wizarding world. Good evidence, I suggest, that Dumbledore is orchestrating the action, including selecting the right DADA professor to work with Snape in managing events for Harry, Sirius, and Wormtail. Events that were to culminate in a controlled reunion in the Shrieking Shack, and Wormtail's subsequent return to Voldemort. We don't know the *exact* time Lupin began monitoring the map, on the day of the Shrieking Shack showdown, but we have some good parameters. Lupin says "I was watching it carefully this evening, because I had an idea that you, Ron and Hermione might try and sneak out of the castle to visit Hagrid *before* his hippogriff was executed." (347 my emphasis) Lupin would have been aware, as we are, that the execution was scheduled for sunset. (320) If he expected the trio to go to Hagrid's *before* sunset, then he surely was watching from the time they set off through the entrance hall, for, as they exited the castle "the sun was already sinking behind the Forbidden Forest. (327) Therefore, he would have seen the infamous "footsteps in the hall" scene, where HRH (and Scabbers) are under the invisibility cloak, while time-traveled H & H are in the broom closet. (327 and 395) Again, though we have no specifics regarding the scale of the map, we do know that in order to show the castle and grounds, it is quite small. From a map-readers' perspective the distance between HRH& S and TT H&H must have been less than an inch. I mean, they would have been right in front of Lupin's gaze. If he missed them there, he could have seen TT H&H, following behind HRH & S, then dashing toward the perimeter around the greenhouse, where they would have been moving dots on grounds that were largely unpopulated. (401) Again, because of scale, the moving doubles would have been in close proximity. Lupin apparently didn't stop looking at the map until after Sirius pulled Ron under the Whomping Willow. (347) That means he was watching while TT H & H move from the edge of the FF, to within hearing distance of Hagrid's hut (402), where they listen to the unfolding of events (including the *amused* Dumbledore). Again, doubles movement in close proximity to HRH & S--*very* close from a map-reader's view--which it seems unlikely Lupin would miss. Then, while HRH & S head for the WW, TT H & H move across the grounds to a clump of trees close to the WW (where the Sirius action that Lupin acknowledges seeing, takes place). (403) Again, movement on an open plain that is likely placing the doubles within an inch of each other. It is just too hard to believe that Lupin doesn't get quite an eyeful. Now, read the Shrieking Shack scene again, and tell me who is acting. Talisman, who loves good theatre. From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 22 18:28:44 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:28:44 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040123072342.00a84870@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 89386 At 10:02 22/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Sigune wrote: >I have been wondering lately about what happened in the one before >last of Harry's Occlumency lessons. There, Harry casts a Shield Charm >and the result is he gets to see some of Snape's memories. What I >find strange is that something like a simple (?) Shield Charm should >permit Harry to get inside Snape's mind. I think that is strangely in >contradiction with the repeated qualification of Snape as a superb >Occlumens. > >Even if Harry's Shield Charm made Snape's spell bounce off and caused >him to be hit by his own Legilimenting spell, it still seems to me >that it should be a piece of cake for Lord Thingy (an expert >Legilimens, better at it than Snape) to break into his sneaky ex- >servant's mind. So can Snape really rely on this Occlumency business? >Or does anyone have an alternative explanation for what happened? > > >Yours severely, > >Sigune Tanya now Shield charms were used in the Dumbledore/LV duel. I know they were moving around alot. But the spells deflected didn't get rebounded that I can recall. I think something else was going on besides the shield charm when Harry used it. However, I have wondered on this too. Maybe rebounding spells is not a once time occurrence for Harry. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 22 18:49:54 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:49:54 -0000 Subject: Neville and the thestrals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89387 Since Harry notices the strong resemblance between Neville and Mrs. Longbottom, it seems profoundly unlikely that Neville was adopted. Sylvia (who can see no resemblance between Harry and Neville, even in the films) From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 18:50:06 2004 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:50:06 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" > wrote: > > > Talisman wrote> I like your observation Tonya. Subject to my beliefs about time travel (post # 79635) But, I certainly do think Lupin would have seen two sets of Harry and Hermione. > Now, read the Shrieking Shack scene again, and tell me who is acting. > > Talisman, again: For those interested. The first theory regarding Dumbledore's agents in the SS, that I am aware of, occurs in bluesqueak's "The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack" #39662. That thread goes on to explore the possibilities in ways I don't always agree with, and culminates in the Magic Dishwasher Theory, which, as stated in Innish Alley, I agree with, but which in later posts has taken turns I don't agree with. (This is just to clarify that, by pointing these out I am not adopting them, rather I mean to give fair credit and let newer posters know that these posts are out there, if they want to explore the issue.) Kneasy is another proponent of Dumbledore's machinations, including the use of operatives. I can't recall every post that deals with this issue, but it was recently re-explored by myslef, Kneasy, and others in the Crying Wolf thread. I know one of my post numbers that will get you into the midst of that thread, is #81961. Talisman, who is neglecting responsibilities to post today, because Tonya's post just tempted her too much. From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 18:55:33 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:55:33 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89389 << In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: But in this particular instance I think Muggle is a discriminatory term and I have a very good lawyer who says that if I can prove that I'm being victimised I could make a packet out of this. Yippee! Early retirement!>> The Sergeant Majorette says Yippee! indeed! Can we make this an international class action suit? I wince whenever I come across the word "Muggle" because it sounds too much like that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the middle. And now I come to think of it, there's also that pejorative term for male homosexual that has a double-g in the middle... --JDR From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 19:00:53 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:00:53 -0000 Subject: Questions regarding the locked room Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89390 1. Is it entirely a symbolic thing? I've noticed JKR tends to be mechanistic even when working with metaphors. 2. (assuming it is more than a metaphor) if the room is always locked, then what is the point having it at all? 3. What would have happened had Harry succeeded opening the door? 4. Since Harry has in abundance the force that is in the room (whatever it is) could he (unlike others) open the door without any damage done? 5. What would have happened to LV if someone would have kicked him inside and lock the door on him? Just wondering aloud. Neri From pisk at inuyasha.nu Thu Jan 22 14:49:34 2004 From: pisk at inuyasha.nu (piskmiffo) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:49:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch / Legilimens In-Reply-To: <000001c3dfe3$cce66f90$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89391 Helen: > The thing is though... if Dumbledore is a Legilimens, he had to have > known that Peter was the traitor way back when. Whether or not he is > Ron, he knew anyway. > pisk: Well, being a Legilimens doesn't mean that you know everything everyone thinks. And if he's not Ron, he didn't know that there was going to be a traitor at all. It's not like he'd go through the heads of all the people in the Order on a daily basis to check for traitors. I tend to see legilimency as something rude, that Dumbledore wouldn't do unless he knew he had to. Voldemort, well, he's Voldemort. From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 22 14:31:20 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040122143120.80662.qmail@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89392 Patty wrote: I thought he had seen Quirrell die, thus being able to see the thestrals in his 2nd year. Anneli: Did Harry not see his mother die when he was a baby? Even if he doesn't remember it would it not still mean he could see the thestrals? Anneli From frost_indri at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 15:40:09 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:40:09 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89393 Sigune: > I have been wondering lately about what happened in the one before > last of Harry's Occlumency lessons. There, Harry casts a Shield Charm > and the result is he gets to see some of Snape's memories. What I > find strange is that something like a simple (?) Shield Charm should > permit Harry to get inside Snape's mind. So can Snape really rely on this Occlumency business? > Or does anyone have an alternative explanation for what happened? Frost: Well lets try this theory on and see if it fits. When trying to teach occlumency you're guard is going to be down a bit. Snape prepares for this by putting some of his most personal memories in the pensive. Part of this could be that to use the Legilimens spell that Snape was using is kind of like a full, head on thrust with a sword. It leaves you wide open for attacks. So when Harry used the unexpected shield spell, Snape was caught with his gaurd down and his mind exposed, and Harry could see in. So if Snape were having a Legilimens sparring match with the Dark Lord, then he would probably be in trouble. But normally Snape isn't as exposed as he is in his lessons with Potter, so we don't have to worry too much about Voldie snaking though his defenses that way. However, there does always remain the possibility that LV will get in from some other direction, that Snape breaks down, that his and Harry's renewed (and unreasonable on both sides) hatred at the end of OoP causes him to switch sides just enough to take a swipe at that snotty lil' brat. (as Snape sees him.) From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 19:11:59 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:11:59 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" > wrote: > > > After the lastest rereading of POA [a] new quesiton occured > to me about the map. When Lupin showed up in the shack he said he > had been watching the map because he thought that they (Harry, > Hermione & Ron) were going to go see Hagrid right... ok at the same > time Harry and Hermione were also on their way to save Buckbeak > after using the timeturner. SOOOOO will Harry and Hermione show up > twice on the map?? "Because the Marauder's Map never lies" Quote > Lupin POA (page 295 I think, don't have the books at work) What do > you think?? I think they showed up twice, Lupin was focused on the > original set of Harry and Hermione. > Tonya > > Talisman, setting aside some little wizard marionettes, replies: > > I like your observation Tonya. Subject to my beliefs about time > travel (post # 79635) But, I certainly do think Lupin would have > seen two sets of Harry and Hermione. > > And, I think he did. And, I don't think it surprised him, > because,like Snape, he is old Order and an active agent of > Dumbledore's. And, this is fine example of Dumbledore's management > of events. > > Let's back up a little. There are at least 11 days between the > time Lupin confiscates the map (POA, U.S. edition, p.290) and the > date scheduled for Buckbeak's execution. > > Harry's Quidditch euphoria lasts a week (p.314) during which they > practice for exams, and his last exams and the hearing/execution > date occur on Thursday of the following week (pp. 318-20, 327.) > > I find it hard to believe that during those ~11 days Lupin > didn't spend time looking at the map, including specifically > checking out HRH (with Pettigrew in tow) and Gryffindor tower. This > out of sheer nostalgia, if not for security purposes. > > And yet, he gives no indication of seeing this supposedly dead > friend and hero of the wizarding world. > > Good evidence, I suggest, that Dumbledore is orchestrating the > action, including selecting the right DADA professor to work with > Snape in managing events for Harry, Sirius, and Wormtail. Events > that were to culminate in a controlled reunion in the Shrieking > Shack, and Wormtail's subsequent return to Voldemort. > > We don't know the *exact* time Lupin began monitoring the map, on > the day of the Shrieking Shack showdown, but we have some good > parameters. > > Lupin says "I was watching it carefully this evening, because I > had an idea that you, Ron and Hermione might try and sneak out of > the castle to visit Hagrid *before* his hippogriff was executed." > (347 my emphasis) > > Lupin would have been aware, as we are, that the execution was > scheduled for sunset. (320) > > If he expected the trio to go to Hagrid's *before* sunset, then > he surely was watching from the time they set off through the > entrance hall, for, as they exited the castle "the sun was already > sinking behind the Forbidden Forest. (327) > > > Therefore, he would have seen the infamous "footsteps in the > hall" scene, where HRH (and Scabbers) are under the invisibility > cloak, while time-traveled H & H are in the broom closet. (327 and > 395) > > Again, though we have no specifics regarding the scale of the map, > we do know that in order to show the castle and grounds, it is quite > small. From a map-readers' perspective the distance between HRH& S > and TT H&H must have been less than an inch. I mean, they would > have been right in front of Lupin's gaze. > > If he missed them there, he could have seen TT H&H, following behind > HRH & S, then dashing toward the perimeter around the greenhouse, > where they would have been moving dots on grounds that were largely > unpopulated. (401) Again, because of scale, the moving doubles > would have been in close proximity. > > Lupin apparently didn't stop looking at the map until after > Sirius pulled Ron under the Whomping Willow. (347) > > That means he was watching while TT H & H move from the edge of the > FF, to within hearing distance of Hagrid's hut (402), where they > listen to the unfolding of events (including the *amused* > Dumbledore). > > Again, doubles movement in close proximity to HRH & S--*very* close > from a map-reader's view--which it seems unlikely Lupin would > miss. > > Then, while HRH & S head for the WW, TT H & H move across the > grounds to a clump of trees close to the WW (where the Sirius action > that Lupin acknowledges seeing, takes place). (403) Again, movement > on an open plain that is likely placing the doubles within an inch > of each other. > > It is just too hard to believe that Lupin doesn't get quite an > eyeful. > > Now, read the Shrieking Shack scene again, and tell me who is acting. > > Talisman, who loves good theatre. Now Tonya again: GREAT THOUGHTS Talisman!!! Now you have me really thinking..... Yes for sure Lupin, I was wondering if Snape was also doing a bit of acting.....What do you think?? Tonya From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 18:36:45 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:36:45 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89395 Sigune wrote: > Harry casts a Shield Charm and the result is he gets to see > some of Snape's memories. What I find strange is that something > like a simple (?) Shield Charm should permit Harry to get inside > Snape's mind. I think that is strangely in contradiction with the > repeated qualification of Snape as a superb Occlumens. > NOW Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > I hesitate to say this to the whole list, because I think a lot of > people get sick of those of us who think Harry is "gifted" with > special talent & abilities, but that's how I would explain it. I > mean, had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just > somehow know to use it? Whether shown or not, it was apparently a > very strong charm to have caused this effect which Snape didn't > expect. I just think Harry is a VERY POWERFUL wizard...maybe even > more powerful than Voldy [hence his ability to hold on/"win" the > connected wands duel], and that explains why it affected Snape as > it did. Now Hitomi: Here's my thing with Occlumency. I think it is very similar to the Imperius Curse (Snape does mention Harry's ability to throw it off in the first Occlumency lesson, I believe) in that very few people can get past it. The shield charm struck me as just a method Harry used, a spell to counterattack, it wasn't what enabled him to get into Snape's mind, THAT was Harry himself, and only because he was fighting with his will, he didn't want Snape to see his memory with Cho. Harry's ability to throw off the Imperius Curse struck me as the same thing - a force of will. Harry is incredibly strong- willed, and I think it ignorant of readers, who don't believe Harry has special abilities. The kid is going to have to defeat Lord Voldemort, something no other wizard can do. The kid has special abilities, we just are not entirely sure what they are yet. One other thing, we don't entirely know how the Ligilimens thing works, in that Voldemort and Dumbledore know when someone is lying without using the actual spell. Maybe that was just Snape's way of training Harry, we really don't know, and because I have a feeling Dumbledore might end up teaching Harry Occlumency next year (he probably still needs it), we'll just have to wait to find out. And I'm going to keep repeating this quote in my signature, because the Harry-bashing is annoying me to death. Why on earth are you reading a series named after him, if you don't like him? (Not to mention, how can you not love Harry? His character is beyond beautiful.) JKR in responding to a reader asking her which character she missed most when done writing (at Royal Alber Hall interview with Stephen Fry): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of me in Harry." ~ Hitomi, who agrees with Siriusly Snapey Susan :) From helen at odegard.com Thu Jan 22 19:22:49 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:22:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's watch / Legilimens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c3e11d$2019d190$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89396 Helen: > The thing is though... if Dumbledore is a Legilimens, he had to have > known that Peter was the traitor way back when. Whether or not he is > Ron, he knew anyway. > pisk: Well, being a Legilimens doesn't mean that you know everything everyone thinks. And if he's not Ron, he didn't know that there was going to be a traitor at all. It's not like he'd go through the heads of all the people in the Order on a daily basis to check for traitors. I tend to see legilimency as something rude, that Dumbledore wouldn't do unless he knew he had to. Voldemort, well, he's Voldemort. Helen again... Think about this logically for a moment... they know there is a traitor. They are in the middle of a war. Dumbledore, as a Legilimens, *knows* when someone is lying to him. This is exactly what he tells Harry what went down with Kreacher. This is life and death; forget about rudeness, Dumbledore is going to ask people probing questions, even if they aren't aware that is what he is doing. He's going to notice if Peter is uncomfortable and shifty. He's going to notice if Peter is lying. For him to otherwise would be worse than rude, it would be downright suicidal. Helen (who thinks either way, Dumbledore knew) From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 18:59:44 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:59:44 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89397 Vecsey: > I have just been listening to OOTP on tape (I read it and now I'm > just listening), but, I have come to the same conclustion about > Umbridge that she knew too much. She tried to kick out ST and she > did kick out Hagrid, she implied Giants to Hagrid, while Harry is > under the invisibility cloak in Hagrid's house, the first time > Umbridge meets Hagrid. And WHY did she hate Trelawney so much? She > isn't a half breed, it just didn't add up. She was trying to kill > Harry with the dememtors, and she is (I think) in leage with LV. I think that's pushing it a little too far, because if she were in league with Voldemort, she's got to be the most incompetent Death Eater, besides maybe Wormtail. A lot of Rowling's characters are evil without being with Voldemort, and most are exaggerated. I always looked at Umbridge as ignorant, and power-hungry. She's cowardly, and she fears what she doesn't understand (half-breeds). I can't really blame her firing Trelawney, Trelawney is apparently capable of real prophecy, she just never remembers them when she makes one. I think Umbridge just wanted power, and she asserted it anyway she could, and if firing Trelawney might open the door for another Ministry official at Hogwarts (she didn't know Dumbledore would hire someone that quickly, much less Firenze), then I think she saw that as all for the better. The thing that sickened me most about Umbridge, is that I think she truly believes she's in the right. And that is a classic Rowling character. Though of course, if she does end up in league with LV, I step back in all humble-tude. > What did it for me was when she was going to use the Curcio on > Harry to get him to tell her who he was talking to in the fire in > her office. She was enjoying herself. She talked herself into it. > Not like the imperious curse where you do what you are told; no, she > was having a really good time. Well, we already knew she was evil, and besides, the Imperius Curse would not have worked anyway. Harry just throws it off. > Maybe old Lord Thingy had told her that she would still be in > power at the M of Magic and if she would just help him out a little > bit. I'm waiting for book 6. I think there is going to be a day in > court, and I think THAT is how Arthur is going to get to be Minister > of Magic. I think DU is going to bring down Fudge really quickly. > And somehow, maybe Albus is going to suggest Mr. Weasley for the post! > Hummm can't wait to see.. I still don't think she's a Death Eater, just a veeeeery misguided adult. I always saw the MM as a third party device in the plot, the MM isn't on either side, the protagonist or antagonist, it's on its own side. Which is realistic of the real world, and what Rowling tries to say a lot of the time in her writing - instead of joining together, those who are oppressed usually fight among themselves (House Elves, Giants, MM vs. Dumbledore, etc.), making it easier for the antagonist. Do I think there could be truth to Fudge having an army and so forth? Most definitely, for which we will have to wait until Book 6. The WW believes Harry, but do I think the MM will just stop being a nuisance because of this? No, it wouldn't be realistic. Fudge will probably fight Dumbledore every step of the way, wanting to lead, when really only Dumbledore should. Yet again, we'll just have to wait and see. We probably haven't seen the last of Dolores, but she has been discredited, and I don't see how she would be of much use to LV now. If Rowling would just finish Book 6... ~ Hitomi, who loathed Umbridge with the fire of a thousand suns From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 19:20:48 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:20:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Sigh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89398 Pippin: > Well, full disclosure, it's a long time since I was fifteen. But > what I thought was significant was that she first laughs "Harry, > you're worse than Ron," and then sighs "Well, no you're not," as > she sees Ron stumping into the Hall, "splattered with mud and > looking grumpy." > > I think she's sighing over the fact that neither boy seems to have > the emotional intelligence of a doorknob or to have read the > manual as far as courtship is concerned. She thought she was > making some progress with Ron when he gave her the perfume, > but Ron is obviously still losing his head on the Quidditch field > *and* he hasn't cleaned himself up before meeting Hermione at > dinner. Ok, I'm eighteen, and I remember EXACTLY what it feels like to be fifteen, and to like a boy for the first time. I don't think Hermione cares at all that Ron is splattered in mud, that's superficial and very un-Hermione. I think she sighed when she saw Ron, because as far as I'm concerned Ron and Hermione have always been an established couple in the books, not a SHIP, and Hermione does like Ron, but Ron's clueless. She sighs when she sees him, because seeing him is just a reminder and confirmation that her two best friends haven't got a clue when it comes to the opposite gender. > Hermione's a girl who wants to be courted, IMO. She doesn't > have quite the confidence that Cho does to cut her fella out of > the herd and rope him, so to speak. I think it is jealousy of this > ability, rather than a desire for Harry per se, that led her to > sabotage Cho's date though perhaps she'd like to elicit a little > romantic interest from Harry, just to prove to herself that she > has what it takes. Am I missing something? How on earth did she sabotage Cho's date? Hermione wasn't trying to sabotage Cho and Harry's date, and I highly doubt she's jealous of Cho for such a reason, that's just petty. Though I don't think Hermione has the confidence Cho does when it comes to boys, no, I just think Hermione is waiting for Ron to get a clue. Ron is still trying to come to terms with the fact that he likes the girl that is one of his best friends. He loves his best friend, so then how exactly does he feel about Hermione romantically? He's confused, which is a typical Ron emotion. Hermione doesn't want romantic interest from Harry, nor does Harry ever look at her that way. And as far as Harry's date goes, Cho sabotaged that, Hermione invited her to the Three Broomsticks for heavens sake. Harry just never assures Cho that Hermione is just a friend, as he did with Krum when asked. Actually I think it marks how much Hermione approves of Harry dating Cho, that she would trust Cho to come along to see Rita and listen to Harry's story. Harry never tells Cho all that much of his life, they never had anything in common except for Quidditch and, of all things, Cedric. Not exactly relationship-building material. I always saw Ron as the one who didn't much approve of Cho, in his reactions to Harry's telling him and Hermione about Cho's kiss, and at the end of the book. I think Hermione just wanted Harry to be happy, and I still think she's just waiting for Ron to figure his feelings out. Once he does, then I suppose we'll see. ~ Hitomi, who is highly amused by Ron and Hermione From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Thu Jan 22 19:42:46 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:42:46 -0000 Subject: Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: <20040122143120.80662.qmail@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89399 Anneli: > Did Harry not see his mother die when he was a baby? Even if he doesn't remember it would it not still mean he could see the thestrals? >>> Hi, Anneli! Yep, you're right; this was asked of JKR in the Royal Albert Hall webcast, and she answered: ~~~ "Harry saw his parents die so why hasn't he been able to see the Thestrals before?" JK Rowling: I knew I was going to get that one that is an excellent question. And here is the truth. At the end of Goblet of Fire we sent Harry home more depressed than he had ever been leaving Howarts. I knew that Thestrals were coming, and I can prove that because they're in the book I'd produced for Comic Relief (UK) "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". These are lucky Black Winged Horses. However, if Harry had seen them and it had not been explained then it would cheat the reader. So, to explain that to myself, I decided you had to have seen the death and allowed it to sink in a bit slowly these creatures became solid in front of you. So that's how I'm going to sneak past that one. ~~~ I buy it, anyway. ;-) Here's a link to the full transcript of this event: http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/transcript/ --Kelley From Mhochberg at aol.com Thu Jan 22 19:50:33 2004 From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:50:33 EST Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89400 "Dave" wrote: >> After reading Order Of The Phoenix, (at least twice), I cannot understand why, a senior ministry employee, like Umbride, would resort to sending the Dementors to 'Kiss' Harry. I know the reason she gives, in chapters 32 and 33, (paraphrasing) that she wanted to help her boss, the Minister of Magic, but would there not be repercussions for such action. The equivalent of the death penalty for being awkward and inconvenient sent on a teenage boy, Harry Potter, without a trial etc. Is there something else I'm missing? Dave << I say: What you are missing is that Fudge doesn't care about trials and acts unilaterally. Think of Crouch being given to the Dementors at the end of POA. And he sent Sirius to Azakaban without a trial. That the rest of the MOM went along with this is one of the places where I simply have to accept what JKR has written. Laws and rules in the WW seems to be enforced very arbitrarily. One of the few problems that I have with the WW has to do with the foolishness or immaturity of "adults." With exceptions, I don't have a lot of respect for adult wizards. ---Mary [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eclipse021342 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 19:33:53 2004 From: eclipse021342 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:33:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040122193353.4524.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89401 Talisman wrote: > I find it hard to believe that during those ~11 days Lupin > didn't spend time looking at the map, including specifically > checking out HRH (with Pettigrew in tow) and Gryffindor tower. This > out of sheer nostalgia, if not for security purposes. My only problem with this is that by this time Pettigrew has faked his death as Scabbers. So he wouldn't be on the map with the trio. Also Lupin doesn't mention seeing Peter with the trio until they leave Hagrid's. So the Hut must be a dead zone. So if Peter was there all the time, even looking at the map, Lupin wouldn't see him. Eclipse From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 20:05:54 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:05:54 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20040123072342.00a84870@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89402 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tanya Swaine wrote: > At 10:02 22/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: > > >Sigune wrote: > >I have been wondering lately about what happened in the one before > >last of Harry's Occlumency lessons. There, Harry casts a Shield > >Charm and the result is he gets to see some of Snape's memories. > > ...edited... > > > >Yours severely, > > > >Sigune > > > Tanya now > > Shield charms were used in the Dumbledore/LV duel. ... > But the spells deflected didn't get rebounded that I can recall. > > I think something else was going on besides the shield charm when > Harry used it. ... Maybe rebounding spells is not a once time > occurrence for Harry. > > Tanya bboy_mn: Not much to add here, just wanted to remind you that the physical Shield (a metal shield that clanged when struck by a curse) that Voldemort conjured up in the Ministry of Magic is not the same as the 'Protego' Shield Charm. The Protego Charms surrounds the caster with an invisible barrier that deflects minor curses (Gof). I suspect there are more types of 'shield' charms as well. I do specifically remember reading a reference to a variation that causes the cast spell to rebound on the user, although, at the moment, I am having trouble finding a reference to that. It could be that the Charm rebounded on to Snape simply because Snape and Harry were so close to each other. Regardless of why, I think the 'what' is that Harry's use of the shield charm caused Snape to be hit by his own spell. In the past, I have mentioned that there are both 'event' and 'sustained' charm/spells/curses. Harry failed in his use of the Crucio Pain Curse because he treated it like an 'event' curse. Meaning you cast it once and it goes off on it's own and does it's job; like a gun, BANG, you're cursed. However, the Pain Curse is a 'sustained' curse, you must cast it and hold it, you must sustain the intended effect for the curse to continue; more like a laser beam weapon. Examples: Stunning curse - Bang! you are stunned. Pain Curse - continues until the caster pulls back his wand with the intent of ending the curse. The 'Legilimens' curse is a sustained curse, Snape has to cast it and then sustain the intent which in turn sustains the active curse until Harry blocks the effect or Snape releases it. This is important because the curse has to be in progress in order for the Shield to deflect it. If it were an 'event' curse, while the effect might linger, the curse itself would have come and gone, and there would have been nothing to deflect. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 20:14:10 2004 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:14:10 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonyaminton" wrote:> GREAT THOUGHTS Talisman!!! Now you have me really thinking..... Yes for sure Lupin, I was wondering if Snape was also doing a bit of acting.....What do you think?? > Tonya Talisman, who must be obsessive, since she's back on list when she should be out of the building, tries not to twitter too much, and replies: Oh YES, Tonya. In my world Snape is Dumbledore's main go-to man, his aide-de-camp and trusted lieutenant. While other characters come in and out of the plot line, Snape is always involved, (and always secretly watching Harry's back). I'm going to have to dash, but I think I've posted some of my ideas regarding Snape in the SS, previously. I'll check later tonight and either send you some old post numbers, or put a new post out. Talisman, happy to be talking about Snape again P.S. To patient annemehr, I do have drafts of responses to two of your posts, which I should be able to review and post by Saturday night at the latest. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 22 20:38:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:38:11 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > It is just too hard to believe that Lupin doesn't get quite an > eyeful. > > Now, read the Shrieking Shack scene again, and tell me who is acting. > Evil!Lupin theory also maintains that Lupin knew previously that Pettigrew was alive, and did see Harry and Hermione twice...that was what he really meant when he said he thought the map was malfunctioning. As to who is acting, suppose Snape knew that Lupin had been a Death Eater, but was and is prevented from revealing this by the Fidelius Charm. If Voldemort were Lupin's secret keeper, then only he could reveal that Lupin is his spy. Obviously Voldemort didn't protect all his DE's this way, but is there anything to say that none of them were? Suppose then that Snape distrusts Lupin but is not sure where his current loyalties lie -- until the night of the Shack. Snape does believe everything he is told by Dumbledore regarding Sirius's innocence. But Peter's escape proves to him that Lupin is still a loyal DE, and that's why Snape outs Lupin as a werewolf. Throws a different light on everything, doesn't it? Pippin From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 20:56:56 2004 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:56:56 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: <20040122193353.4524.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eclipse wrote: > > > My only problem with this is that by this time Pettigrew has faked his death as Scabbers. So he wouldn't be on the map with the trio. Also Lupin doesn't mention seeing Peter with the trio until they leave Hagrid's. So the Hut must be a dead zone. So if Peter was there all the time, even looking at the map, Lupin wouldn't see him. > > Eclipse Talisman, who should not have looked at the list again, because she is getting sooo late, Thanks, Eclipse. I take your point regarding *where* Lupin would have seen Scabbers, however I can't think of any canon to support the idea that the hut doesn't show up on the map. On the contrary, the hut is part of Hogwart's grounds and we are told that the map shows what is on the grounds. The places we are shown that do not show up are cleary off grounds: the Shrieking Shack, in Hogsmeade, and the Forbidden Forest proper. Considering the evidence that Lupin saw double Harry and Hermione, I don't think the fact that he doesn't mention what else he would have seen in the hut is evidence of a dead zone. So instead, I would posit that, the hut being a rather uncrowded place, someone making a security sweep of the map would likely see Pettigrew lurking there. The hut is also close to the WW (of special nostalgic interest to Lupin of the 11 days). Finally, on the evening in question, when Lupin first scanned the map to see what was going on, he should have seen Scabbers in the hut (the trio's anticipated destination). Of course he would have seen Scabbers by the time HRH arrived at the hut--and the whole Scabbers discovery scene ensued--though I think if he had started sprinting then he would have been out on the grounds by the time they ran into Sirius. Talisman, who is not allowing the list to tempt her again until much later this evening! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 21:06:35 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:06:35 -0000 Subject: Vauxhall Road - again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89406 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Some of you with long memories going back at least six weeks will > recall a long thread on Vauxhall Road .. Carolyn: So ! The investigation continues ! However, I think that at some point we have to ask ourselves whether JKR did any of the digging that we have, and if so, to what purpose.. is there a clue there for us to find or not ? Did she deliberately find a road that used to be called something else just to conclusively link Tom Riddle to the Stockwell orphanage or not ? And if he was at the orphanage, we still don't have any idea why, when it really seems to be an awful long way from Little Hangleton. Methinks, since it was an important Baptist orphanage, you should set up a sneaky church research project, Geoff, and get lots of your fellow brethren engaged in looking through dusty files from the 1920s and 1930s, to see if there was some surprising project to bring children from all over the UK to London at that time. An international research project, tell them, with interested supporters all over the world . Well.. we have to find out somehow .. and they might enjoy it ! From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 21:12:16 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:12:16 -0000 Subject: Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: <002501c3e0dc$49e0c4c0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89407 > Patty: > > I'm sorry if this was asked before, but I was wondering why Harry couldn't > see the thestrals after Quirrell died and only could see them after Cedric > died. I thought he had seen Quirrell die, thus being able to see the > thestrals in his 2nd year. > > Taryn > He didn't see Quirrel die. > > "He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down...down...down..." (US paperback, pg. 295) > > So he was passed out before Dumbledore came in. > Constance Vigilance: And besides, Quirrell isn't dead. Or have I mentioned that already? CV From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jan 22 21:23:38 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:23:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency and Shield Charm Message-ID: <146.20e88e8f.2d41995a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89408 In a message dated 1/22/2004 12:46:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just somehow know to use it? Wasn't that one of the charms/jinxes/hexes he learned for the TWT? Sherrie (who only has PoA here at Mom's) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 21:31:59 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:31:59 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vecseytj" wrote: >She isn't a half breed, it just didn't add up. "K" We don't know that, do we? I think she is. The following message gives several reasons why she might be. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80356 From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Jan 22 22:01:38 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:01:38 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vauxhall Road - again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4010E2F2.32179.76D17B@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 89410 On 22 Jan 2004 at 21:06, a_reader2003 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > Some of you with long memories going back at least six weeks > will > > recall a long thread on Vauxhall Road .. > > Carolyn: > So ! The investigation continues ! However, I think that at some > point we have to ask ourselves whether JKR did any of the digging > that we have, and if so, to what purpose.. is there a clue there for > us to find or not ? > > Did she deliberately find a road that used to be called something > else just to conclusively link Tom Riddle to the Stockwell orphanage > or not ? It's *very* hard to say. Personally I doubt there's any important clue there - but I think it's certainly possible she might have known about the existence of an orphanage in that vicinity, and so decided to use that as a place to stick Tom Riddle. I have a book of street maps of London from 1964 - a considerable length of time after the Stockwell Orphanage closed it's doors. It's still on the map - it's still marked as an orphanage. None of the other older orphanages of London I know about are marked on the maps that I can see in this book. Which suggests to me that common knowledge of this orphanage persisted longer than many others. While I doubt JKR put a vast amount of thought into this, I can see here at least looking for a location somewhere near an orphanage to stick Tom Riddle. It seems possible. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From helenhorsley at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 22:14:25 2004 From: helenhorsley at hotmail.com (dorapye) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:14:25 -0000 Subject: a bit o' R/H analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89411 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > I don't see any rudeness on Ron's part in the /first/ meeting. If > anything, Hermione is rude in her dismissive comment about Ron's > spell. > > "'Are you sure that's a real spell?' said the girl. 'Well, it's not > very good, is it?' > > (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters" p.79 UK > edition) > > She then rabbits on about having tried a few spells, learned all the > set books off by heart and then tells Harry that he's in all the > books. > > "'Am I?' said Harry, feeling dazed. > 'Goodness, didn't you know?'" > > (same page) > > > ..which is a trifle patronising if anything. > > The only comment Ron makes at this point is that he hopes that > Hermione is not in the same house as him - and that is /after/ she > leaves the compartment with Neville in tow. > > It is on the second occasion, she comes back in and starts trying to > organise and Ron asks her to leave while they change that he scowls; > but she hasn't exactly been reading "How to Win Friends and Influence > People" has she? dorapye: I agree - Hermione does not come across well on their first encounter, she's bossy, intrusive, nosy, shows off and her comments to Ron asbout his rat-spell are more than a little condescending. I only meant that her comment about him having dirt on his face was possibly in response to Ron's unsubtle effort to get rid of her, as a kind of 'huh!' and yet, for me, that's never really rung true. I couldn't understand what response she might be trying to elicit from Ron with that comment. It's not strong enough to really insult him, or to humiliate him. And surely she doesn't say it because she wants to save him the embarrassment of having a dirty face when he arrives at Hogwarts and meets all the other students? She's only just met him, so I can't believe she'd really care. And most 11 year old boys wouldn't be that troubled about a dirty mark on their face. So, this particular line always seemed rather clumsy and pointless to me. It puzzled me as it seemed inconguous with the rest of her comments; the only thing that perhaps connected it with the portrait of Hermione at this stage *was* the fact that she was repeating something that Ron's mother had been fussing over as she said goodbye to him at Kings Cross. Hermione has often since that first meeting taken on the 'mother' role in the trio (homework, History of Magic notes, conscience, toast, counsellor...). I just wondered if this Mrs Weasley-shadowing in Hermione was meant to persuade us that these two are destined to be paired together, or to convince us that they will definitely not (that's assuming we are meant to make an Oedipal reference here) I have to admit, when I saw The P/S film, I was surprised that they kept that particular line, yet chopped so many much more interesting ones. Just my thoughts. dorapye From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 22:25:49 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:25:49 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > I hesitate to say this to the whole list, because I think a lot of > people get sick of those of us who think Harry is "gifted" with > special talent & abilities, but that's how I would explain it. I > mean, had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just > somehow know to use it? Geoff: "He had soon mastered the Impediment Jinx, a spell to slow down and obstruct attackers, the Reductor curse which would enable him to blast solid objects out of the way and the Four-Point spell, a useful disocvery of Hermione's which would make his wand point due north therefore enabling him to check whether he was going in the right direction within the maze. He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well placed Jelly-Legs Jinx." (GOF "The Third Task" p.529 UK edition) So he had come across it. May I add my two pennyworth by saying that I don't like the Harry- bashers either but neither do I accept that he is invincible and a second cousin to Superman. He is talented and on occasion displays exceptional abilitites but he is also a teenager learning the ropes of life, often the hard way. As recently as message 89308, I wrote the following: I have come out in support of Harry on a number of past occasions as not being either evil, ruthless or on the opposite side a perfect Christ figure. The following is part of a comment I originally made in message 78099 which also involved a discussion on belief but summarises my feelings about Harry as a character. "Again, to finish, Dumbledore points out to Harry in COS that what we are is a result of our choices, not our abilities and this again is part of the core of real Christian belief. Harry reminds me so much of myself in many ways when I was at that age, looking for answers, being impatient, not listening to wiser counsels, making a pig's ear of things but I believe that I finally reached decisions which have given me a full and satisfying life because I made the right choices at the right time. I am sure that many contributors to this group will snort and say "Rubbish" because they do not share my view of life - and they have a perfect right to do so. My point is that people who are at the stage of making choices for themselves at crucial moments could do far worse than looking at the advice Harry receives from all directions and the ultimate (and sometimes flawed)choices he makes". From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Jan 22 22:36:38 2004 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:36:38 -0000 Subject: Magical Radar - Unwitting Request for Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89413 Steve threorized: > The wizards monitoring magic occurrences at the Ministry of Magic are > able to detect magical events. That allows them to closely monitor > specific locations like Harry's (actually the Dursley's) house. If > that magic exceeds a particular threshold, it then appears on Magic > Storm' radar. > > When substantial bursts of magic occur or magic events occur at > critical locations, that may automatically trigger more sophisticated > magical detectors that can divine the nature of the magic that > occurred. This would allow the Ministry of Magic to dispatch > Accidental Magical Reversal Teams and Teams of Obliviators very > quickly to deal with dangerous magical events. And Fred Walthrop asked: > > One of the problems I have had is from OOTP, Chapter 3, "The Advance > Guard". > When the guard "breaks" into #4 Privet Drive, how many spells are > used? .... > So, 6 charms in what, 15 to 20 minuntes? And even if you say most of > the charms were mild, from what I understood from the reading, the > Disillusionment Charm was some pretty big magic. (and I still have > not mentioned all the times Mundungus was popping in and out around > Harry. If they cound not tell it was Dobby in CoS, how could they > tell it was Dung, and everyone else, in OOTP?) > Seems to me that if Fudge really wanted to get Harry, he would have > kept charging Harry for every bit of magic done around Privit drive. For my comments, I'm going to first agree with Steve's theory; it seems very logical and also fits with my own ideas very nicely. Regarding the Advance Guard spells, it's only a problem assuming there's direct communication between the Underage Magic monitoring people and the Minister of Magic at all times. But I seriously doubt there is typically much communication between the two. There are plenty of other options for dealing with problems (sending warnings when needed, calling in the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, etc.) without going to the most powerful person in Wizarding government. Perhaps a monthly report submitted by the branch head to the Minister (or more likely, an aid) discussing the amount of magic observed, the severity, etc. And, of course, serious breaches (such as the pudding incident and the Patronus) that could lead to Wizarding World emergencies would be reported immediately. However, the spells cast by the Advance Guard all far under the non-emergency sort of magic. The Disillusionment Charm may be advanced magic in its production, but it certainly isn't a dangerous spell from a muggles-detecting-magic point of view. Under normal circumstances, Harry may have received a mild warning for this. However, I doubt the Improper Use of Magic department knew exactly what was going on between Harry, Dubledore, and the Ministry. From their point of view, Harry cast a Patronus and was immediately disciplined severely for this, as per protocol. In a matter of minutes, they received word from the Minister of Magic that the expulsion and wand-destroying should be reversed pending a trial. Suddenly, the matter has passed out of their hands and seems to involve not only the Minister of Magic but also the very controversial at the moment Albus Dumbledore. I expect that when, a few weeks later, a handful of minor spells were performed at Harry's residence, it didn't seem dangerous enough to go running to the Minister again, especially considering that a trial was already expected. -Corinth From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 22 22:42:04 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:42:04 -0000 Subject: Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89414 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: Anneli: > > Did Harry not see his mother die when he was a baby? Even if > he doesn't remember it would it not still mean he could see the > thestrals? >>> > Kelley: > Hi, Anneli! > > Yep, you're right; this was asked of JKR in the Royal Albert Hall > webcast, and she answered: > > ~~~ > "Harry saw his parents die so why hasn't he been able to see the > Thestrals before?" > > JK Rowling: I knew I was going to get that one that is an excellent > question. And here is the truth. At the end of Goblet of Fire we sent > Harry home more depressed than he had ever been leaving Howarts. I > knew that Thestrals were coming, and I can prove that because they're > in the book I'd produced for Comic Relief (UK) "Fantastic Beasts and > Where to Find Them". > Geoff: Just for reference, you might find some more interesting discussions about thestrals in a thread we had some months ago, starting at message 80944. From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Jan 22 23:49:35 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:49:35 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89415 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grace701" wrote: > Helen R. Granberry aka Lizard Laugh wrote: > > Ah! But I think Hermione's gift to the boys is really more telling > > than their gifts to her. Sure, we know Ron has a thing for her > > (and the gift of perfume very sweetly illustrated that) and Harry > > did indeed put thought into his gift (whatever his motives), but > > Hermione gave both boys identical gifts. Not playing favorites? > > Still hasn't made up her mind? Only time will tell ;) Grace replied: > If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think > Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p Actually, I've always throught the planners were identical. Is there something in canon that suggests to you that Harry's planner talks and Ron's doesn't? Come to think of it, why *would* the two planners be different anyway? It seems to me that if Hermione thought that both Ron and Harry should have homework planners as Christmas presents, what reason would she have for getting Harry a talking one and Ron a non- talking one? Harry's not blind or dyslexic, after all, so I can't see any kind of "special needs" reason. Seems to me that Harry and Ron need equal amounts of nagging to do their homework ;-), so why would she go to the trouble of buying two different kinds? This is an interesting suggestion that I haven't seen before, so I'm really curious as to why you think Harry got the "better" gift. Jo Serenadust From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 23:55:51 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:55:51 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_It=92s_Occlumency?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89416 My latest musical nears completion (just "Cinderella, Darling" and a few reprises to go) It's Occlumency (OOP, Chap, 24 & 26) To the tune of It's Been a Long Day from Frank Loesser's How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying Dedicated to Gail B. THE SCENE: The Potions Dungeon. Skilled Legilimencan (Legilimencist?) ALBUS DUMBLEDORE decides to listen in on one of SNAPE'S Occlumency lessons with HARRY (Uncanonical, I know, but this song requires three voices). DUMBLEDORE (disembodied): Well, here it is six p.m. The dungeon I furtive approach. And there they are both of them, Young hacker Harry and his coach. Both all-too-well acquainted. Not very much rapport So I can hear those two bitter foes Waging a war. Now, he's thinking: SNAPE: For this assignment I never begged. DUMBLEDORE: And he's thinking: HARRY: If only I could break both his legs. DUMBLEDORE: Now, he's saying: SNAPE: You have to call me "sir" DUMBLEDORE: And he's thinking: HARRY: My dreaming I prefer. DUMBLEDORE: And he says: SNAPE: I warned you... DUMBLEDORE: And he says: HARRY: What's that? *Sir* ? SNAPE: Well, it's Occlumency. ALL: Well, it's Occlumen, Occlumen, Occlumen Occlumency! DUMBLEDORE: Now, he's saying: SNAPE: The Dark Lord pokes around in your head DUMBLEDORE: And he's thinking: HARRY: Why is it Snape says minds can't be read? DUMBLEDORE: Now he's saying: SNAPE: You've got to clear your brain DUMBLEDORE: And he's saying: HARRY: Just how you won't explain! DUMBLEDORE: And he says: SNAPE: Legilimens! DUMBLEDORE: And he says: HARRY (falling to his knees): Aaaaargggghhhh! SNAPE (spoken): Manners! HARRY: Well, it's Occlumency! ALL: Well, it's Occlumen Occlumen, Occlumen Occlumency! (HARRY abruptly slides back into his chronic corridor-dream) HARRY (ecstatically): Hey! There's a sudden stunning vision I'm having It's the D.O.M. door opening wide And in this room with the black floors, More doors, candles all blue, At last inside, Which one the first door to be tried? SNAPE (spoken, furious): Explain yourself! HARRY (spoken, lying): I lied! DUMBLEDORE: Now he's saying: SNAPE: You simply are refusing to work! DUMBLEDORE: And he's saying: HARRY: You say "The Dark Lord," you DE jerk DUMBLEDORE: Now he's thinking: SNAPE: Why time waste on this dreck? DUMBLEDORE: And he's thinking: HARRY: My curse scar burns like heck (Inconsolable screaming is heard from the entrance hall) DUMBLEDORE: And he says: SNAPE: What the - ? DUMBLEDORE: And he says: HARRY: (spoken): Who? SNAPE: (spoken): Where? HARRY (spoken): Why? (In the Entrance Hall, SNAPE & HARRY discover Prof. Trelawney, wailing madly after being cashiered by a gloating UMBRIDGE. Enter DUMBLEDORE in corporeal form) UMBRIDGE: Well, it's Ms. Sibyll T! Yes, it's miserable Ms. Sibyll, Ms. Sibyll Ms. Sibyll T.! HARRY, SNAPE & DUMBLEDORE Yes, it's miserable Ms. Sibyll, Ms. Sibyll Ms. Sibyll T.! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 01:15:27 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:15:27 -0000 Subject: FILK: Auror Switch Song (Bein' Moody) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89417 SCENE: Just prior to the start of school in Harry's 4th year, Barty Crouch, Jr, in his disguise as the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Alastor Moody, reviews his foolproof plans to deliver Harry to his Master and is feeling just a bit giddy in anticipation. Unable to hold in his joy, he begins to sing ... To the tune of The 49th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy) Here is the midi: http://www.hamienet.com/midi5409.html (Dedicated to CMC) Auror Switch Song (Bein' Moody) Dark Arts, Defensive class Wooden leg and eye of glass I'm chuggin' down the poly juice Bidin' my time just Bein' Moody Look at Harry - Goblet picked him. He will make the perfect victim "Blood of foe" says the recipe Birthing brew through Bein' Moody A tri-wizard match Make sure Harry's won A cup that's a portkey and my job is done. And the Dark Lord will heap all his praises on me... Life, I love you While I'm Moody ~ Constance Vigilance From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 23 01:21:20 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:21:20 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > Thanks, Eclipse. I take your point regarding *where* Lupin would have seen Scabbers, however I can't think of any canon to support the idea that the hut doesn't show up on the map. < Actually, Harry didn't see his own ink figure on the map until he'd stepped outside the classroom where Fred and George gave it to him. "He pulled out the map again and saw, to his astonishment, that a new ink figure had appeared upon it, labeled *Harry Potter*." -emphasis orginal. So there are dead zones on the map. If Peter feared discovery after faking his death, he'd naturally look for a place that Crookshanks would avoid also and Hagrid's hut fills the bill there,too, since Hagrid dislikes cats. ESE!Lupin knew that Peter was at Hogwarts, but he was taken in by the second fake death, I believe, until he saw Peter on the map. Pippin From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 01:27:29 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:27:29 -0000 Subject: Umbridges Motives (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89419 Sue wrote: THANK YOU for bringing this up! It has bothered me for a very long time. As some people have expressed previously, it did not sit well with me that Umbridge just waltzed out of Hogwartz with out any apparent consequences for her horrid behavior. I would love for Book six to open with a new trial in front of the Wizengamot with the toad wringing her hands as the charges are read against her (no bow this time just messy hair and bad shoes). My vision of the end of this hearing is Harry breaking her wand in half and sending her off to clean bedpans in the werewolf ward. Or perhaps a permanent post in the Forbidden Forest as the Centaur liaison.... ;) vmonte responds: I don't think that the ministry knows that Umbridge sent the Dementors. Doesn't a wizard owe you if you save their life? Dumbledore saved Umbridge's life, maybe she is more valuable to Dumbledore free rather than in Azkaban. From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 02:21:06 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:21:06 -0000 Subject: Dolores Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James McDaniel" wrote:> JKR has never before introduced a trait which encompasses so much of > a characters being as this and there not have been a reason why.> If my memory serves me correctly, only three other wizards in the > series have been presented, anatomically speaking, as being so > grossly out of step with the rest of the wizarding world. The first > is Professor Flitwick. As we know little if anything about his past, > I fear Flitwick must be disregarded as part of this conversation. > The other two, Madame Maxime and Hagrid, both turned out to be not > fully human at all, but instead half-giants. In fact, other than > these three, we see no indication of wizards ever looking much > different than normal humans. Did you forget Fleur, or find her totally in step? She is only a quarter Veela, but Ron noticed right away, saying, "She's a Veela!" and she still had the power to turn on charm to get a date to the ball (or Harry supposes). (By the way, this reminds me, Bruce Lee worked to get Chinese people depicted with more respect in American film and television, and was a hero for many Chinese when he finally broke through (perhaps posthumously, sadly). Did you know he was one fourth German? (He looked like his mother, who in older photos looks quite Caucasian.. his son had blond hair and grey eyes.) At least, there is a positive, not negative example of most people's not knowing a spokesperson or whatnot has other heritage as well...) Betta smaragdina From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 23 02:32:20 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:32:20 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Actually, Harry didn't see his own ink figure on the map until > he'd stepped outside the classroom where Fred and George > gave it to him. > "He pulled out the map again and saw, to his astonishment, that > a new ink figure had appeared upon it, labeled *Harry Potter*." > -emphasis orginal. > > So there are dead zones on the map. If Peter feared discovery > after faking his death, he'd naturally look for a place that > Crookshanks would avoid also and Hagrid's hut fills the bill > there,too, since Hagrid dislikes cats. I've always imagined that Harry appeared on the Map not because of dead zones, but because the Map shows only the mischief-makers and people directly connected with their mischief. The people Harry picks out the first time he sees the Map are Dumbledore, Peeves and Ms. Norris, 'people' he needs to watch out for while wandering around the castle (POA, p. 193). Then the second trip into Hogsmeade, Snape and Neville both show up on the Map--two people who are inadvertently messing up Harry's plans (POA 276-277). Lupin sees HRH on the Map on the night they are sneaking out of the castle. Then in GOF, Harry sees Fake!Moody--definitely someone up to mischief--in Snape's office. Now it's possible Harry only mentions certain names, but why would all the students and faculty show up if the Map is protection for the Marauder? You'd have to sort through 95% of the Hogwarts population to find a couple of people. It would make more sense if the Map is bewitched to only show those people you have an interest in seeing, 'enemies' or people who will unknowingly thwart your plans. Or bewitched to actually KNOW who will hinder your plan and show you those people. Now *that* would be an impressive bit of magic! Jen Reese From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 02:39:42 2004 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:39:42 -0000 Subject: Umbridge's Motives at TBAY (Longish) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89423 The sky over Theory Bay was a pale grey, broken here and there by a small spot of blue where it seemed the sun could break through, if only it would try hard enough. It was under this ambivalent sky that a small raft of cedar logs slipped into the bay, bearing a single person ? a woman whose dark hair was extremely untidy. Feeling the gentle bump of the raft on the sand, the woman stood and walked onto the beach, without looking up. Instead, she was staring at two slips of paper, one in each hand. She would gaze at one slip for a while, then at the other. Then suddenly, she would reach up to her hair and pull at it in apparent frustration. So engrossed was she in staring at the papers that she walked right into George, who was standing on the beach trying to decide if he should lower the umbrellas on the patio tables in case a wind blew in with these clouds. "Hey!" he said, as the woman walked on his foot. "Watch where you're going!" "Sorry," the woman mumbled, without even looking at him. She continued to walk down the beach. George stared after her for a moment. Then, both because of his curiosity and because he wasn't used to women who didn't look appreciatively at him, he followed her. "Wait!" he called, catching up to her. "Who are you? What are you looking at?" The woman turned a troubled set of brown eyes to him. "I'm looking ? " She seemed to struggle for words. "I'm trying -- It's these!" She thrust the slips of paper at him. They said simply "89351" and "89383." Then he understood. He took the woman's arm and steered her toward a small stone bench that was conveniently nearby. "Sit down," he said. "You look exhausted. And you didn't tell me your name." The woman took several long breaths. Finally, she seemed ready to speak. "I'm Augustina Peach. It's Dolores Umbridge. Last summer, I had these same questions about her. But others have argued so convincingly that she was not connected with Voldemort that I forced it from my mind. But now these ---- and all those questions are back. I just don't know whether I'm going to a D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. or a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L." George blinked. "What?" "Is it a D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. ? Dolores Is Surely A Spy To Eliminate Resistance, or is it a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L ? Dolores Umbridge is Not Giving Help In Lord (V's) Lark? The problem is, there are can(n)ons on each side. Every time I think I have it figured out, I realize the other explanation is also perfectly plausible." Suddenly the words began to pour from Augustina, as if she had been suppressing them for so long she would explode if she didn't say them now. "Most of the time I think the evidence points to a D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. First, the Order believes they need to have spies in the Ministry because Voldemort certainly will have his own spies (OoP, p. 95). It makes sense that he would want to have a spy in the top levels of the Ministry, and as Umbridge is a senior undersecretary, she clearly has access to and influence with Fudge. Certainly Lucius Malfoy is influential at the Ministry with his donations ? and probably his Imperius curses ? but he's not going to be at the Ministry all the time or a part of the day-to-day decision processes. "Then there is the desire of the Ministry to suppress information about Voldemort's return. Keeping that news quiet serves Voldemort's purposes more than it does those of the Ministry in the long run. Once Voldemort is allowed, without interference, to return to full power, it is a safe bet that he will try ? probably successfully ? to overthrow the Ministry's power. Fudge's efforts to discredit Harry's story play right into Voldemort's long white fingers." "But why would Fudge be so short-sighted?" George asked. "Because Fudge is a weak leader who is easily manipulated by misinformation," Augustina said darkly. "Originally, he doesn't seem to have any grudges against Dumbledore or Harry. We know from Lupin that when he first became minister, Fudge was `forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice' (OoP, p. 94). In PS/SS, Hagrid says Fudge `pelts Dumbledore with owls every morning, askin' for advice' (p.65). Throughout most of the story, Fudge has a kindly, fatherly attitude toward Harry. At the end of PoA, Fudge says, `Harry Potter, you know. . . .we've all got a bit of a blind spot where he's concerned' (p. 387). At the beginning of GoF, Fudge greets Harry `like an old friend' and introduces him to the foreign wizards (p. 100). Even as late as Harry's dream in Trelawney's class, Fudge is friendly to Harry, greeting him `jovially' (GoF, p. 581). So why does he change his attitude toward Harry so drastically in a month or less? Why does that change of attitude coincide so neatly with the night of Voldemort's rebirth?" "Well, Harry thinks it is because of the article in the Daily Prophet," George offered. "Exactly! But why would Fudge believe a *single* article in the Daily Prophet, *especially* one written by Rita Skeeter?" Augustina's eyes had a slightly maniacal gleam, George thought in alarm. "At the beginning of GoF, Rita has been writing articles so critical of the ministry that Percy says she's `got it in for the Ministry" (p. 147). If Rita has been such a critic of the Ministry, why would Fudge suddenly start to believe her ? UNLESS ? the article about Harry confirms in print the misinformation Fudge has been hearing about Harry and Dumbledore for most of the year! Between the two of them, Umbridge and Malfoy could influence Fudge to see events in a way favorable to Voldemort's plans. "To be fair, I suppose anyone in the ministry could have been feeding Fudge subtle hints about Harry's mental instability and Dumbledore's lust for power. However, Umbridge is as good a candidate as any. Maybe she was a Voldemort supporter during VWI ? not a Death Eater," she added quickly, seeing the look of disbelief that George wore. "Maybe she was recruited by Malfoy. Certainly she has qualities that would make her receptive to Voldemort's philosophy ? lust for power, prejudice against half-breeds, a streak of real cruelty, disregard for laws when they don't suit her purposes. Obviously, she knows the Malfoys well and is very friendly with them. She's too bumbling to be an effective Death Eater, but I'd bet my copy of OoP she would be more than willing to use her position to do a few favors for Lucius. At the end of PS/SS, just who sent that `urgent owl' to call Dumbledore to the Ministry at the very point when Quirrell was ready to go through the trapdoor? "I suppose," said George, beginning to wonder if Augustina would notice if he slipped away. "And there is this business about the dementors in the alleyway. Why dementors? If the Ministry -- or one of its representatives -- wants to tempt Harry into performing underage magic so he can be expelled, there are lots of less permanent ways to accomplish the goal, right? So, is the goal really expulsion? At the end of PoA, Fudge doesn't know that Harry can produce a Patronus. He asks Snape, "you've really no idea what made (the dementors) retreat?" (p. 387). Unless Harry's ability has become public knowledge during his fourth year at Hogwarts ? which I don't think is the case, judging by the reactions of people to this news during OoP -- sending dementors after him in Little Whinging is not a temptation to do magic ? it is a blatant attempt at murder! And who is responsible for this attempt? ? Dolores Umbridge! "Once she's at Hogwarts, Umbridge's behavior is no less suspicious. All her actions toward Harry seem designed to keep him from talking about Voldemort, or to get him expelled from Hogwarts and away from Dumbledore, or to deprive him of any pleasure in life. Maybe she's just mean, or . . ." "Maybe she just sees Harry as a threat to the stability and authority of the Ministry," George interjected. "Then why doesn't she treat Hermione the same way she treats Harry?" Augustina shot back. "Hermione challenges Umbridge's Ministry-approved teaching methods not once, but twice, in class. Hermione is the one who brings up the need for practical education in defense, which would put her clearly in Dumbledore's "militant" camp, in the Ministry's view. If Umbridge were really trying to solidify the Ministry's authority at Hogwarts, she would punish Hermione as severely as she punishes Harry for bringing up Voldemort's name. So why does Hermione only lose five points from Gryffindor (OoP, p. 317) while Harry gets a week's detention of writing lines in his own blood? Clearly, it is Harry who is the major target because he knows the truth about Voldemort, not because Umbridge is worried about the Ministry's authority." Augustina sighed. "There's more," she said. "The inspections of the faculty closest to Dumbledore or the prophecy. The way she appears to be baiting Snape during his inspection. The way she asks Hagrid about "mountain scenery" when she's questioning him on the night he returned from his trip (OoP, p. 437) ? would she really know he had been to see the giants if she weren't communicating with Death Eaters? I mean, I know the MoM had someone trailing him, but he got away from the tail in France, long before he actually got to the giants (OoP, p. 426). There's the way she almost hysterically tries to pin the responsibility for Dumbledore's Army on Harry so that he will definitely be expelled. But after Dumbledore takes responsibility, she has nothing else to say. And there's this whole matter of her starting to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry to get information from him. If she wanted him to do what she wanted, to give the information she wanted, why didn't she use "Imperio," eh? Because she knew it wouldn't work! The Death Eaters were witnesses to Harry's ability to throw off the Imperious Curse!" She suddenly pulled at her hair again. "But Hogwarts is also where the D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. starts to come apart. Umbridge's cover story of trying to eliminate threats to the Ministry is completely consistent with her behavior at Hogwarts ? maybe it is a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L., after all. I'm . . . . I'm just so tired." She fell silent. "Come on," said George, rising from the bench. "I know just the place for you. Let's see if they'll take you at the Safe House, with the MAGIC DISHWASHER. You'll like it there, and you can get some rest. And maybe a good hair stylist," he added, as they began to walk slowly up the beach. From grace701 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 02:45:56 2004 From: grace701 at yahoo.com (grace701) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:45:56 -0000 Subject: Perfume vs. Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89424 > I, Grace replied: > > > If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think > > Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p > > > Serendaust wrote: > Actually, I've always throught the planners were identical. Is > there something in canon that suggests to you that Harry's planner > talks and Ron's doesn't? > > Come to think of it, why *would* the two planners be different > anyway? It seems to me that if Hermione thought that both Ron and > Harry should have homework planners as Christmas presents, what > reason would she have for getting Harry a talking one and Ron a non- > talking one? Harry's not blind or dyslexic, after all, so I can't > see any kind of "special needs" reason. Seems to me that Harry and > Ron need equal amounts of nagging to do their homework ;-), so why > would she go to the trouble of buying two different kinds? > > This is an interesting suggestion that I haven't seen before, so I'm > really curious as to why you think Harry got the "better" gift. > I think Hermione was just looking out for her bestfriends by giving them something that would be good for them even though it isn't anything that they want. I have book 5 here in front of me to check to see where I got my idea from and I misread it: US Edition Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 23 - Christmas on the Closed Ward - p. 501: "Harry sorted though his presents and found one with Hermione's handwriting on it. She had given him too a book that resembled a diary, except that it said things like 'Do it today or later you'll pay!' every time he opened a page." See I thought that when JKR wrote "except" she meant that his diary was different from Ron's because it said things. :D ~Grace From kreneeb at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 20:45:06 2004 From: kreneeb at hotmail.com (hermionekitten9) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:06 -0000 Subject: perfume vs.book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89425 Grace said >If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think >Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p Kitten What makes you think Ron's book didn't talk? I thought that the book talking annoyed Harry, didn't he throw it across the room one time? kitten From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 21:42:22 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:42:22 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: <146.20e88e8f.2d41995a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89426 susiequsie23 at s: > had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just > somehow know to use it? > Sherrie (who only has PoA here at Mom's): > Wasn't that one of the charms/jinxes/hexes he learned for the TWT? > Yes, and Harry taught the DA the shield charm as well. ~ Hitomi :) From frost_indri at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 21:57:38 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:57:38 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89427 Hitomi: <> Harry is incredibly strong- willed, and I think it ignorant of readers, who don't believe Harry has special abilities. Frost: I'm sorry their words annoy you, but you shouldn't insult people just because they don't agree with your vision of the character. >> And I'm going to keep repeating this quote in my signature, because the Harry-bashing is annoying me to death. Why on earth are you reading a series named after him, if you don't like him? (Not to mention, how can you not love Harry? His character is beyond beautiful.) >> Frost: I can only speak for myself, and I will. Harry may be a beautiful character, but it is because he is flawed. As an artist, I know that while most people tend to like things that are perfectly symmetrical, it is that which is unsymmetrical that is more interesting, and more worth your time to wrestle with. Harry is not perfect. Actually, he annoys the crap out of me sometimes. He makes mistakes. He's not in perfect balance. He's not wonderfully blessed. I would point out that he's been rather thoroughly cursed. ;) If he were so specially gifted, as you seem to see him, I would be bored. How many times have I read about perfect characters, or characters who "aren't perfect" but are still somehow always in the right. Wonderfully gifted characters don't come up against real struggles; certainly not ones I can identify with. I find amazing beauty in a character who is no more gifted than those around him, and yet he strives and through his struggles, becomes something more. I think Harry does have some gifts and talents, but no more than other people. I would hate for him to become a "ubercharicter." The type who runs into a battle and then you know that the battle will be won. I've already read that story, a thousand times. It's boring. Worthless. Harry is flawed, and it is his flaws that make him beautiful. Might I point out that the greatest characters in English lit. were all flawed? MacBeth, Lady MacBeth, Othello, Iago, Shylock, King Lear, Captain Ahab, Don Quixote. (ok, so you can tell I'm a Shakespeare buff -_-' But I remembered two who weren't written by him!). Even in more modern writings it is the Flawed characters that bring the most beauty. It is through internal struggle that we explore the questions of humanity, and that show us the beauty in our existence. I think its fair for us to be frustrated with Harry. JKR has managed to make him very human, very real. And to say that he is special because he has extra talent just steals that away. As you may have noticed from other posts, I'm not willing to say that Harry is completely without talent, but I don't think he's any superman either. I think he has places where he's good at things, and places where he is bad. I don't think he is going to be a natural Legelmens, he doesn't have the focus of mind. He is bloody stubborn, which does translate into a certain amount of will- power, but that is as much a flaw as it is a strength. I think that is an interesting insight on the part of JKR. It pleases me greatly. ^_^ Most of all, the Harry bashing that you complain about is in a way, some of the greatest praise JKR can get. They aren't complaining about how poorly Harry was written. They are complaining about him as though he were real; a person that they know and want to kick the crap out of for being a brat. (ok, maybe that is a little strong, but you get my point.) Hitomi: > JKR in responding to a reader asking her which character she missed most when done writing (at Royal Alber Hall interview with Stephen Fry): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of me in Harry." >> Frost: That just means that she loves him, warts and all. And being a hero... heh. I think she's a woman who has enough insight to see beyond the "muscle" and see what is truly heroic about a person. That doesn't require them to be perfect. I mean, really who would you rather read about? Superman or Batman. I'd pick Batman any day. Batman is my hero, and he's the dark grumpy guy without any superpowers, (beyond his Bottomless bat-wallet.) Hero's don't have to be perfect. They just have to show something that we admire and strive for. Just my two knuts. *looks up* hmmm make that a sickle. Frost From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 23:06:39 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:06:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch / Legilimens In-Reply-To: <000801c3e11d$2019d190$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89428 Helen (who thinks either way, Dumbledore knew) wrote: > Think about this logically for a moment... they know there is a traitor. > They are in the middle of a war. Dumbledore, as a Legilimens, *knows* > when someone is lying to him. This is exactly what he tells Harry what > went down with Kreacher. This is life and death; forget about rudeness, > Dumbledore is going to ask people probing questions, even if they aren't > aware that is what he is doing. He's going to notice if Peter is > uncomfortable and shifty. He's going to notice if Peter is lying. For > him to otherwise would be worse than rude, it would be downright > suicidal. LizVega Here: Not sure if this pertains to your discussion, but regardless of whether or not DD knew that Peter was the traitor, he didn't know that Lilly and James made him secret keeper.. DD thought that it was Sirius, as did Lupin. Which makes me ask, and I know it's been brought up before, but, why is it that Sirius was going to be secret keeper anyway, why not DD? From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 23:13:46 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:13:46 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89429 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: But in > this particular instance I think Muggle is a discriminatory term and > I have a very good lawyer who says that if I can prove that I'm > being victimised I could make a packet out of this. Yippee! Early > retirement!>> > The Sergeant Majorette says > > Yippee! indeed! Can we make this an international class action suit? > I wince whenever I come across the word "Muggle" because it sounds > too much like that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the > middle. And now I come to think of it, there's also that pejorative > term for male homosexual that has a double-g in the middle... I don't see any problem with the word 'muggle'. There had to be a way for JKR to distinguish between 'wizards' and 'non magic folk'. And, not to be argumentative, but isn't it a stretch trying to correlate "that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the > middle. And that pejorative term for male homosexual that has a double-g in the middle..." to a word that means, essentially, 'unable to do magic? Are all words with double 'g's derrogatory? How about hugger? Is that bad? Or jogger? LizVega (Who doesn't understand people who place so much negative emphasis on words that JKR has created for our entertainment) From justinlwtx at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 23:22:21 2004 From: justinlwtx at yahoo.com (justinlwtx) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:22:21 -0000 Subject: Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89430 > Constance Vigilance: > > And besides, Quirrell isn't dead. Or have I mentioned that already? If you read the conversation between Harry and Dumbledore while he is recovering in the hospital wing, you will find that Quirell is dead, for after LV quit possesing him, he died. Voldemort lived on, but Quirrell died. Justin, who is finally posting for the first time From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 23:41:13 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:41:13 -0000 Subject: a bit o' R/H analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89431 Dorapye said > It's not strong enough to really insult him, or to humiliate him. > And surely she doesn't say it because she wants to save him the > embarrassment of having a dirty face when he arrives at Hogwarts and > meets all the other students? She's only just met him, so I can't > believe she'd really care. And most 11 year old boys wouldn't be > that troubled about a dirty mark on their face. Most 11 year old boys are starting to realize things. They start to like girls, unless they already have like in most cases, and become interested in their own looks. This has kind of bothered me in the books, Harry and Ron seem utterly clueless with girls, and didn't seem to even notice girls until the fourth book. Andrew From Tigerstormxx at aol.com Thu Jan 22 23:35:59 2004 From: Tigerstormxx at aol.com (james320152002) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:35:59 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89432 I just finished reading Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone for the 3rd or 4th time and I was just thinking were all those protections really necessary ? I am mean Fluffy the Three headed dog, The Giant Chess set, The Flying Keys, The Potions riddle and the Troll and finally the Mirror Erised. Why did Dumbledore go through all that to protect the stone. Wouldn't the Fidelius Charm be a much better form of protection with Dumbledore himself being secret ? From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Fri Jan 23 02:16:40 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:16:40 -0000 Subject: Umbridge's Punishment (was Umbridge's Motives) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89433 Sue (hoping for justice) wrote: > (snip) As some people have expressed previously, it did not sit well > with me that Umbridge just waltzed out of Hogwartz with out any > apparent consequences for her horrid behavior. I would love for Book > six to open with a new trial in front of the Wizengamot with the toad > wringing her hands as the charges are read against her (no bow this > time just messy hair and bad shoes). My vision of the end of this > hearing is Harry breaking her wand in half and sending her off to > clean bedpans in the werewolf ward. Or perhaps a permanent post in > the Forbidden Forest as the Centaur liaison.... ;) > > Honey: Umbridge definitely deserves appropriate punishment for her evil behavior throughout the year. Although she escapes from Hogwarts with no public chastisement, it seems likely that whatever happened to her in the FF was punishment enough. (A long thread last fall discussed whether or not Umbridge was raped by the centaurs, but came to no conclusion. Evidence for rape was: Centaurs in Greek mythology do it all the time. Evidence against: JKR would never bring up that issue in a kid's book. One post was 78317. Please pardon me for such an extreme summary; the full posts are very interesting.) Dumbledore was undoubtedly aware of the circumstances of her captivity, having rescued her himself, and may have felt that further punishment or humiliation would not be necessary for justice to be done. On the other hand, I for one would not be disappointed by a public trial like the one you describe . Honey From jennalei2003 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 02:20:05 2004 From: jennalei2003 at yahoo.com (electrogirl) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:20:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <1074815429.22196.79343.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040123022005.40012.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89434 Hi! ::waves:: This is my first post to this list, though I have been lurking for quite a while. You all are just fascinating, let me say. I don't have a response to anyone's specific ideas, just a little tidbit to add. Something that has been bothering me about the whole Occlumency thing is this: Dumbledore was so worried about having any contact with Harry because of what Voldemort might learn, but no one seemed to care about the fact that Harry knew that Snape is a spy. He saw him at 12 Grimmauld place and everything. Wouldn't this be bad information for Voldemort to fish out of Harry's head?? Just something that struck me the other day and has been bugging me. Any insight/thoughts are greatly appreciated. ===== Jen The first thing you learn as an ER nurse is this: there's no cure for stupid. "Er, I don't really remember. I took a bludger to the head two minutes in. Woke up in hospital a week later." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 23 11:28:51 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:28:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology References: Message-ID: <004b01c3e1a4$13bac800$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89435 LizVega > > I don't see any problem with the word 'muggle'. There had to be a > way for JKR to distinguish between 'wizards' and 'non magic folk'. > And, not to be argumentative, but isn't it a stretch trying to > correlate "that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the > > middle. And that pejorative term for male homosexual that has a > double-g in the middle..." to a word that means, > essentially, 'unable to do magic? K I don't understand why people are associating a word that is merely the non-magic equivalent of witch/wizard with an insult. I understand the belief that muggles are treated as lesser beings, but just because wizards treat a group in a certain way it doesn't automatically follow that the name for that group is an insult. For vast periods of history women were treated worse than men - but the term woman wasn't an insult. It is also true that for some purebloods the word may seem like an insult - in the same way for some men the term woman might be used as an insult e.g. Malfoy snr might say to his son 'You're marrying her? But she's a muggle!' (not that I can see Draco marrying a muggle), for Lucius he would be using the term as an insult, she's a muggle=she's not good enough to him, but the muggle in question would find the tone insulting but not the word, the same way I would be insulted if someone said 'You can't give the job to *her* she's a *woman*'. I would be insulted by the tone and the fact that the person speaking thought women were less than men, but not by the term woman - after all that is just a biological fact. I am a woman. Just as the muggles in JKRs world are muggles. There has to be some word to stop people having to refer to 'that group of people who are inherently unmagical' just as there needs to be a term in our world for 'that group of people who happen to have two x chromosomes'. If only because life is too darn short to refer to people like that. K *who tried very hard to avoid a thread that she thought was 'silly' but found she just can't help but put in her two penn'orth* From amani at charter.net Fri Jan 23 03:39:53 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:39:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perfume vs. Book References: Message-ID: <002101c3e162$91426cc0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89436 > I, Grace replied: > > > If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think > > Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p > > > Serendaust wrote: > Actually, I've always throught the planners were identical. Is > there something in canon that suggests to you that Harry's planner > talks and Ron's doesn't? > > Come to think of it, why *would* the two planners be different > anyway? It seems to me that if Hermione thought that both Ron and > Harry should have homework planners as Christmas presents, what > reason would she have for getting Harry a talking one and Ron a non- > talking one? Harry's not blind or dyslexic, after all, so I can't > see any kind of "special needs" reason. Seems to me that Harry and > Ron need equal amounts of nagging to do their homework ;-), so why > would she go to the trouble of buying two different kinds? > > This is an interesting suggestion that I haven't seen before, so I'm > really curious as to why you think Harry got the "better" gift. > Grace: US Edition Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 23 - Christmas on the Closed Ward - p. 501: "Harry sorted though his presents and found one with Hermione's handwriting on it. She had given him too a book that resembled a diary, except that it said things like 'Do it today or later you'll pay!' every time he opened a page." See I thought that when JKR wrote "except" she meant that his diary was different from Ron's because it said things. :D Taryn: I believe it's different from a DIARY in that it said this. As in, it looked like a diary, but it wasn't, because it said things when he opened a page. If it was different from RON'S because it talked, it probably would have said, "She had given him too a book that resembled a diary, except that HIS said things like..." At any rate, despite the fact that I think they're identical, I think the better gift would've been a silent one. ;) ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From navarro198 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 04:08:25 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:08:25 -0000 Subject: Cho (Was: Hermione's Sigh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > ~ Hitomi, who is highly amused by Ron and Hermione, wrote: Actually I think it marks how much Hermione approves of Harry dating Cho, that she would trust Cho to come along to see Rita and listen to Harry's story. Bookworm: You make an interesting point here that I hadn't picked up on before. We are led to think we can't trust Cho because of her defense of Marietta, but Hermione trusted her enough to encourage Harry, and to meet with Rita - with the potential for "Harry's New Girlfriend" headlines. Considering the way Cho blushed when she saw Harry on the train home, she is still interested in him. I wonder if her defense of her friend was as strong as it was because she is jealous of Hermione? If someone else, say Ron, had jinxed the list would she have reacted as defensively? When OoP first came out, I was upset about Cho's actions. But there is something there that keeps tickling my thoughts. After building up Harry's interest in Cho over 3 books, JKR seemed to dump her pretty quickly. Teen romances can start and stop without warning, but after they break up rather dramatically, Cho is still aware of Harry, even when he didn't pay attention to her on the train. Under other circumstances I think Harry would be conscious of Cho's presence; the shock of the prophecy and Sirius' death that preoccupies him so that he can't think about anything else. IMHO, Cho seeing Michael Corner is a rebound relationship that isn't going to work out for long. The Ginny described it, Michael "ran off to comfort Cho..." On the train, Hermione was more worried about Harry's reaction to Cho seeing someone else than she was angry at Cho. ["I - er - heard she's going out with someone else now," said Hermione tentatively.] How often is Hermione 'tentative'? Is all the teen angst a diversion to make us think Cho is untrustworthy when Hermione was right all along? She may not have the strength of character others have but I don't think we should write-off Cho quite so quickly. Ravenclaw Bookworm From CoyotesChild at charter.net Fri Jan 23 04:16:19 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:16:19 -0600 Subject: the "Minor Character's Poll" Message-ID: <000001c3e167$a9e98380$18667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89438 Iggy here: I voted for Flitwick. He doesn't really get all that much "air time" compared to the main characters, even the main teachers... but I feel that a lot of his hidden talents are hinted at... such as his skill at dueling. Personally, I have an inkling that he's going to do something significant in one of the upcoming books, or will be shown to have done something particularly important. (Plus, he's my favorite of all the professors, to be honest...) Iggy McSnurd From navarro198 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 04:22:43 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:22:43 -0000 Subject: Neville and thestrals. In-Reply-To: <000001c3e0f4$42c821c0$18667144@Einstein> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Iggy McSnurd" > Iggy here: > > Kinda makes me wonder if Neville and Harry are really twins... Bookworm: This sounds a lot like Luke and Leia to me. "The force is strong in my family. I have it. My sister has it..." Nope, don't think so. Ravenclaw Bookworm From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 05:45:29 2004 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Lady Pensieve) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:45:29 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "james320152002" wrote: I just finished reading Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone for the 3rd or 4th time and I was just thinking were all those protections really necessary ? I am mean Fluffy the Three headed dog, The Giant Chess set, The Flying Keys, The Potions riddle and the Troll and finally the Mirror Erised. Why did Dumbledore go through all that to protect the stone. Wouldn't the Fidelius Charm be a much better form of protection with Dumbledore himself being secret ? ---------- Don't you think that Dumbledore set this up to be a test for Harry and those who have chosen to be his friends? It's clear that the mirror wasn't in place right away - only after Harry had been stealing away to view his family did it get taken away and used for the final protection...or final test. He knew way back when, what Harry would have to go through, and Harry would also need to know he had friends he could count on. Luckily Harry chose well. Kathy From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 05:53:59 2004 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:53:59 -0000 Subject: Question about thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89441 Constance Vigilance, earlier: And besides, Quirrell isn't dead. Or have I mentioned that already? Justin rose to the bait and posted: > If you read the conversation between Harry and Dumbledore while he > is recovering in the hospital wing, you will find that Quirell is > dead, for after LV quit possesing him, he died. Voldemort lived on, > but Quirrell died. > > Justin, who is finally posting for the first time Given an opening for my favorite topic, I jump right in: Welcome to the list. But be careful what you read. Dumbledore most certainly does NOT say that Quirrell died. He very carefully avoids the question by pointing out the Voldemort "left Quirrell to die". He does NOT say that Quirrell died. Every other reference that we have that implies Quirrell is dead (from Voldemort in GoF and from Harry in OoP) mean only that the speakers BELIEVE that Quirrell is dead. I have a full-blown theory which I have spelled out that states that not only is Quirrell alive, but has been redeemed and is on a mission from Dumbledore. You can read my theory at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87648 But let's go back to the "Quirrell is dead" problem. Allow me to quote my own post identified above: Let's review what happened in the dungeon. Harry is holding on to Quirrell who is screaming with pain. Voldemort is yelling "Kill him! Kill him!" Then Harry hears someone calling his name just as he lapses into unconsciousness. The next thing we know, he is awakening in the hospital three days later and has a conversation with Dumbledore. But what happened in the meantime? Let's go back into the dungeon and take another look. Harry is unconscious. Voldemort flies out of Quirrell's head and leaves the scene. Quirrell collapses, near death. What next? Does he die? But Quirrell is fortified with a double dose of unicorn blood, which, according to Firenze, will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death. Let's see what Dumbledore says about it "(Voldemort) left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies." (SS, US edition, page 298) Dumbledore does not say he died, only that he was left for dead. We know that Voldemort believes he is dead. In GoF, he says, "The servant died when I left his body." But we know that Voldemort jumps to conclusions and is usually wrong. More importantly, if Quirrell died, where is the body? I think there is little doubt that Quirrell survived the dungeon and the movie got it WRONG WRONG WRONG. I'll quit now because the list is becoming quite weary of me stumping on my favorite theme. ~ Constance Vigilance, Quirrell Lives! From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 23 07:54:41 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:54:41 -0000 Subject: a bit o' R/H analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: Andrew: > Most 11 year old boys are starting to realize things. They start to > like girls, unless they already have like in most cases, and become > interested in their own looks. This has kind of bothered me in the > books, Harry and Ron seem utterly clueless with girls, and didn't > seem to even notice girls until the fourth book. Geoff: Not "most" in my experience. My wife and I are the youth coordinators at our church. Girls go to the Girls' Brigade which is a long established UK uniformed organisation and so we have a separate Boys' Club which we run and has boys from 7-16 (not all at once). It is quite noticeable from this and from a small mixed discipleship group which we also run that, in our neck of the woods at least, boys are only beginning to look seriously at girls when they are about 14. Below that, it's Playstations, Soccer, Rugby, you name it... Perhaps the kids of West Somerset are an odd bunch. In my own teens, I was a bit clueless into my late teens - perhaps because I attended a single sex secondary school which were much the norm in those days. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 08:02:45 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:02:45 -0000 Subject: Occlumency + Spy Snape In-Reply-To: <20040123022005.40012.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, electrogirl wrote: > ...edited... > > Something that has been bothering me about the whole > Occlumency thing is this: Dumbledore was so worried > about having any contact with Harry because of what > Voldemort might learn, but no one seemed to care about > the fact that Harry knew that Snape is a spy. He saw > him at 12 Grimmauld place and everything. Wouldn't > this be bad information for Voldemort to fish out of > Harry's head?? > > ...edited... > > ===== > Jen bboy_mn: Well, it won't come as a suprise to anyone, but I have a theory about this, although I've posted it many times, so I'll try and stick to the short version. I believe many years ago before Voldemort's first defeat, Voldmort sent Snape as a Spy to join Dumbledore. So any signs that Snape is working with Dumbledore are exactly what Voldemort expects to see. What Voldemort doesn't know is that Snape really has gone over to the good side and is truly working for Dumbledore. Or at least, that is what we are being lead to believe. I can't see any other way that Voldemort or the Death Eaters would continue to associate with Snape, or for that matter, even allow Snape to continue to live. The only explanation I can come up with that seems likely is that Voldemort sent Snape to join Dumbledore, so Voldemort would have a trusted spy in Dumbledore's camp. Naturally, to be a spy and be accepted by Dumbledore, Snape would have to bring Dumbledore some pretty juicy information about the Death Eater activities, and Snape, to stay in good graces with Voldemort, would have to provide some valuable information about Dumbledore. With Snape now working as a double agent, spying for both sides, each side has to accept some degree of betrayal in order for Snape to maintain his cover. Now the question becomes, which side is Snape REALLY working for? Typically Double Agent Spies ultimately are working for which ever side wins. In Snape's case, I believe he truly is working for the good side, but to maintain his cover, he may be compelled to do some terrible things before the series ends. If someone can give me a better, and most important, a LIKELY explanation other than my own, I'd like to hear it. Just a thought. bboy_mn From smirnov3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 04:05:37 2004 From: smirnov3 at yahoo.com (smirnov3) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:05:37 -0000 Subject: Albus Dumbledore must die. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89444 It's true, if the Harry Potter series is to follow the classic 'Epic Fantasy' motif. In all good epic fantasy, the main protagonist starts off with a mentor, who takes him and teaches him how to be a hero and a mensch. But as the protagonist reaches maturity, the mentor always dies, or 'goes away. In Star Wars, that was Obi-one and Yoda. Both died. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf disappears, but Tolkien is more soft hearted, and has him return for the final curtain. But I think JK Rowling is going to continue to push the series in a darker direction, and I don't think she will be soft on Dumbledore. In that same vein, I think she is going to take a fairly dark, if not unrealist approach to the romance in the series: I expect there to be at least one romantic relationship in book 6 that fails horribly (hey, how long does the average teen romance last, anyway) . Will it be Ron and Hermione? Harry and Luna? I don't know, but don't expect any lasting relationships in the series until the final book. smirnov3 From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 04:21:48 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:21:48 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89445 > Hitomi: > Harry is incredibly strong- willed, and I think it ignorant of > readers, who don't believe Harry has special abilities. > > Frost: > I'm sorry their words annoy you, but you shouldn't insult people > just because they don't agree with your vision of the character. Hitomi now: Ok, I'll clarify some things, because I've obviously offended at least someone, when that was never my intent. Saying briefly that in one instance I believed someone to be ignorant of a fact or circumstance, having passed it and/or overlooked it, was never meant to be an insult. I just meant that as human and ordinary as Harry is, there are things about him that are special, and I was replying to a hypothetical reader that would refrain from realizing or mentioning that, not to an actual reader on this list. Again, it was never meant to offend, and I apologize if it has. > And I'm going to keep repeating this quote in my signature, because > the Harry-bashing is annoying me to death. Why on earth are you > reading a series named after him, if you don't like him? (Not to > mention, how can you not love Harry? His character is beyond > beautiful.) > Frost: > I can only speak for myself, and I will. Harry may be a beautiful > character, but it is because he is flawed. As an artist, I know > that while most people tend to like things that are perfectly > symmetrical, it is that which is unsymmetrical that is more > interesting, and more worth your time to wrestle with. Harry is not > perfect. Actually, he annoys the crap out of me sometimes. He makes > mistakes. He's not in perfect balance. He's not wonderfully > blessed. I would point out that he's been rather thoroughly > cursed. ;) > > If he were so specially gifted, as you seem to see him, I > would be bored. How many times have I read about perfect > characters, or characters who "aren't perfect" but are still > somehow always in the right. Wonderfully gifted characters don't > come up against real struggles; certainly not ones I can identify > with. I find amazing beauty in a character who is no more gifted > than those around him, and yet he strives and through his struggles, > becomes something more. I think Harry does have some gifts and > talents, but no more than other people. I would hate for him to > become a "ubercharicter." The type who runs into a battle and then > you know that the battle will be won. I've already read that story, > a thousand times. It's boring. Worthless. Hitomi now: Another point I want to clarify, because I never made it clear, and it seems to have given the wrong impression: I never said I thought Harry was perfect. I don't. Far from. He's actually astoundingly ordinary. Almost... uniquely ordinary. And what I meant by beautiful was loving, giving, compassionate - the things we all strive for in our character development. Do I think Harry is amazingly talented? No. Hermione is more proficient, just perhaps not in a life-threatening situation. Dumbledore is a far more powerful wizard than Harry will probably ever be. The bashing I tire of is usually in reference to Harry's using the Cruciatus curse at the end of Book 5, those who have stated he is ruthless, completely immature, hateful, etc. I've already posted my thoughts on said argument, so I will not be redundant and reiterate them. Harry is just a beautifully loving person. That is all I meant. Again, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, or if this has led to any misunderstanding. Harry is flawed, and as Frost has covered the reasons for that being beautiful, I'll leave that floor to Frost. I'll just add my two cents by saying I have always found the beauty in imperfection, as Dumbledore states in Book 5, next to last chapter, Harry is human, and it is why he cares so much. Human meaning inherently flawed, born into original sin (by my belief system). It's what makes his character so compassionate to begin with, that understanding of the imperfection in himself and others. > As you may have noticed from other posts, I'm not willing > to say that Harry is completely without talent, but I don't think > he's any superman either. I think he has places where he's good at > things, and places where he is bad. I don't think he is going to be > a natural Legelmens, he doesn't have the focus of mind. He is > bloody stubborn, which does translate into a certain amount of will- > power, but that is as much a flaw as it is a strength. I think that > is an interesting insight on the part of JKR. It pleases me > greatly. ^_^ Hitomi now: Nor do I think he is Superman, if he were a Mary Sue, I would never have loved the series the way I do. I just think that in order for him to defeat LV, there are things about him, perhaps some other ability, that we don't know about yet. Or perhaps we do know about it, it just hasn't revealed itself in full. And there is that whole rumor about Lily and Harry's eyes, his strong will, the talent he has in DADA, etc. He has special abilities, he has talent, the Sorting Hat made that clear in Book 1. I don't mean he's invincible, not at all, I just mean he has his talents as we all do, and again, the posts I have become frustrated over are the ones that failed to mention that fact. > Most of all, the Harry bashing that you complain about is in > a way, some of the greatest praise JKR can get. They aren't > complaining about how poorly Harry was written. They are complaining > about him as though he were real; a person that they know and want > to kick the crap out of for being a brat. (ok, maybe that is a > little strong, but you get my point.) Hitomi now: Again, I wasn't referring to those who say he is young, needs to grow up, irrationally angry, etc. He's fifteen, of course he needs to grow up. I'm eighteen, and I accepted a long time ago that I'll never REALLY know anything at all. I was referring to those who say he is hateful, ruthless, etc. That just isn't Harry. > Hitomi: > > JKR in responding to a reader asking her which character she > missed most when done writing (at Royal Albert Hall interview with > Stephen Fry): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going > to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of > me in Harry." Hitomi now: I do so love this quote :) > Frost: > That just means that she loves him, warts and all. And being a > hero... heh. I think she's a woman who has enough insight to see > beyond the "muscle" and see what is truly heroic about a person. > That doesn't require them to be perfect. I mean, really who would > you rather read about? Superman or Batman. I'd pick Batman any > day. Batman is my hero, and he's the dark grumpy guy without any > superpowers, (beyond his Bottomless bat-wallet.) Hero's don't have > to be perfect. They just have to show something that we admire and > strive for. Hitomi now: I agree. Though personally I never particularly liked Superman or Batman :) I think the character Harry has always reminded me most of, in his beauty, heroism, and extreme imperfection, (and perhaps becuase we read him as a child, too) is Ender Wiggin (the Ender series by Orson Scott Card). Though who are meant to lead and protect are the ones who believe they are most undeserving. And I didn't make that understanding of mine clear. I am sincerely sorry that your post was necessary, it should not have been. And I thank you, Frost, for pointing out MY mistakes. I hope I have, at least in part, rectified them. For those curious as to the argument I became so very frustrated over, please refer to my post at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89317 I apologize to any I have offended. Harry just happens to be my favorite character, and I have a tendency to be slightly put out by those who blatantly insult him. Though I'll be the first to admit his faults: brash, stubborn, quick to anger at times (or all of the time in Book 5), not always willing to admit to his mistakes or those of his friends, lashes out instead of walking away... :) ~ Hitomi, who really does love Harry, flaws and all "I'm not one to despise other people for their sins. I haven't found one yet, that I didn't say inside myself, I've done worse than this" (Ender from Speaker for the Dead, Orson Scott Card 350). "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way the love themselves" (Ender from Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card 238). From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 04:51:46 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:51:46 -0000 Subject: Cho (Was: Hermione's Sigh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89446 > Hitomi wrote: > Actually I think it marks how much Hermione approves of Harry > dating Cho, that she would trust Cho to come along to see Rita and > listen to Harry's story. > > Bookworm: > You make an interesting point here that I hadn't picked up on > before. We are led to think we can't trust Cho because of her > defense of Marietta, but Hermione trusted her enough to encourage > Harry, and to meet with Rita - with the potential for "Harry's New > Girlfriend" headlines. > > Considering the way Cho blushed when she saw Harry on the train > home, she is still interested in him. I wonder if her defense of her > friend was as strong as it was because she is jealous of Hermione? > If someone else, say Ron, had jinxed the list would she have reacted > as defensively? > > When OoP first came out, I was upset about Cho's actions. But there > is something there that keeps tickling my thoughts. After building > up Harry's interest in Cho over 3 books, JKR seemed to dump her > pretty quickly. Teen romances can start and stop without warning, > but after they break up rather dramatically, Cho is still aware of > Harry, even when he didn't pay attention to her on the train. Under > other circumstances I think Harry would be conscious of Cho's > presence; the shock of the prophecy and Sirius' death that > preoccupies him so that he can't think about anything else. IMHO, > Cho seeing Michael Corner is a rebound relationship that isn't going > to work out for long. The Ginny described it, Michael "ran off to > comfort Cho..." Hitomi now: I always looked at Hermione's approval of Cho in general as a desire for Harry to be happy. And I do believe Cho is trustworty to an extent, she just needs to pick better friends. But she really knows next to nothing about Harry himself, except for the whole "Boy Who Lived" legend, unless you count Quidditch, and the depressing topic of Cedric. In all honesty, I never liked Cho, and on that date, the whole time I was yelling in my head for her to stop trying to manipulate him for assurance, because Harry doesn't understand, and she just ended up hurting both of them. He never assures her on how much he likes her, but how much did she really like Harry? And I agree, too, Michael is definitely a rebound, but then... so was Harry. That blush on the train, was in my opinion, one of embarrassment. I don't think Cho is really interested in Harry anymore, I don't know if she could get past Cedric's death by being with him (one of the main reasons she wanted to date Harry was so they could talk about Cedric). Harry needs someone with whom he can share things with, especially now; Cho still thinks Sirius is the evil once-Death Eater. I just think there is entirely too much baggage there, and the end of Book 5 did it for me. The things Harry wants after Sirius' death (as it says in the last chapter) are far-removed from the things he wanted before, including Cho. Do I think this relationship is over? Resoundingly yes, and if it wasn't, would it ever need to be over soon. Do I think we've seen the last of Cho? No, besides she's still in the DA. Though, hopefully she won't be bringing Marietta Edgecombe again. > On the train, Hermione was more worried about Harry's reaction to > Cho seeing someone else than she was angry at Cho. ["I - er - heard > she's going out with someone else now," said Hermione tentatively.] > How often is Hermione 'tentative'? Is all the teen angst a diversion > to make us think Cho is untrustworthy when Hermione was right all > along? She may not have the strength of character others have but I > don't think we should write-off Cho quite so quickly. Hitomi now: Like I said, I don't think we've seen the last of Cho, I just think we've seen the last of Cho dating Harry. Hermione was worried about Harry's feelings of rejection, especially after Sirius, but after Sirius and learning of the prophecy, I think the last thing on Harry's mind will be dating. I don't think the best pick up line would be "Oh, by the way, I could die in a couple of years, due to the fact that I'm the only one who can knock of Lord - Thingy, but how about you and me go out, and maybe in future, possibly fall in love?" Uh, no. Harry needs friends right now, and as much as I don't want her anywhere near him romantically, I would be delighted if Cho became Harry's friend. He needs all the friendship and support he can get in the next two years. ~ Hitomi, who feels sorry for Cho, but empathizes far more with Harry From irina_l_ at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 08:32:54 2004 From: irina_l_ at hotmail.com (ilubom) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:32:54 -0000 Subject: Is HP related to Voldemort? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89447 Hi everyone, Just want to start off by saying "hello", I'm new here. I've got this theory that is bugging me at the moment. Is it possible that Harry is related to Voldemort? There are some parts of books that suggest he may be: 1. HP looks like LV/Tom Riddle did in his youth - this is mentioned several times in CoS, including by Riddle. 2. The fact that LV, upon hearing of the prophesy went after Harry and not Neville - who is a "pureblood". Dumbledore actually mentions that for LV a "pureblood" wizard is the only one that is worth being or knowing. If that is the case, why did he assume that Harry was the one who would be his nemesis? If he knew that Harry was related to him it would explain him deciding that Harry may have the same sort of power. 3. LV was reluctant to kill Lily - he only killed her because she would not get out of the way. When LV is speaking through Quirrell he says that Harry's mother need not have died. Why wouldn't he want to kill her if she was working against him - he is not exactly a humanitarian! (on the other hand he thought nothing of killing his father and grandparents so even if Lily was a relative it should not have influenced him). 4. The comment made by the Sorting Hat that Harry had Slytherin's power in him and would do well in that house. As LV is the "heir of Slytherin" it may suggest a commonality of blood (although what DD says about LV transferring his power to Harry when he failed to kill him may also provide an explanation. 5. It would fit well with the theme of bad relatives (eg Dursleys, Bellatrix and Sirius, Weasleys and Percy, etc) What do people think? Cheers IL From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 23 09:34:53 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:34:53 +1100 Subject: Vauxhall Road, Again In-Reply-To: <004b01c3e1a4$13bac800$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: <4011856D.7390.1D4CDDD@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 89448 Honestly, I'm not obsessed. It's just my work involves me sitting around doing nothing waiting for things to happen sometime and research helps fill up some of the time. Basically, I am now more or less totally convinced that a section of London in the vicinity of Kennington Lane was known as Vauxhall Road (or rather as The Vauxhall Road) until quite recently, even though it may have officially had another name, and the Vauxhall Road name was still in relatively common used. Other evidence gathered (outlined in previous posts) make me believe it was probably Kennington Lane or part therof, but the most recent material I've uncovered doesn't actually confirm which road it is - just that there was definitely a road being referred to by the name Vauxhall Road or the Vauxhall Road in that general area. The source for this belief is various articles in The Times newspaper of London. I may be able to find even more articles about this later on - for the moment I have mostly focused on articles relating to cricket, simply because the proximity of the Oval lets me know that these references are to Vauxhall Road, London as opposed to one of several others (I've found others in Gloucester, Birmingham, and Liverpool, during this, IIRC). Now - the references. First of all one from around the time that Tom Riddle would have been in the area. The Times of Tuesday May 25, 1937, p 50. The article is "Cricket To-day and Yesterday A Review of Great Players By Our Cricket Correspondent" It contains this statement. "To succeed Hobbs, Hendren and Sutcliffe came Hammond, about whom no two can agree. On this day nothing more majestic can be seen. The first time I saw him at the Oval was when he hit a ball into the Vauxhall Road" (Hitting a cricket ball into Kennington Lane from the wicket at the Oval would be a pretty impressive shot, but not impossible) The second reference is similar, but from 1961 - specifically August 24, p 4 - "Surrey Caned by Somerset Pair" "Earlier the Somerset opener, Roe had hooked a ball from Surrey's fast bowler Jefferson into the Vauxhall Road." The third is from 1934. July 2, p 6. "Australians at the Oval - Surrey's Disappointing Display" "There was little at this time to encourage a fast-increasing Oval crowd, and one's sympathy was with the musician in the Vauxhall road, who broke into the most dismal of cornet solos." I've also found a reference from 1982 - but that I am pretty sure is a mistaken reference to Vauxhall Bridge Road. It seems pretty clear to me that the term Vauxhall Road was in use in London at the relevant period - I'm less convinced (though I think it is plausible) that the reference is to part of Kennington Lane. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 10:28:06 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:28:06 -0000 Subject: Weasley dynamics (was Re: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89449 I (Del) wrote : > I wouldn't say they are ESE either, but I must say I'm concerned > about a family where : > 1. the oldest son took a job in Egypt > 2. the second son took a job in Romania > 3. the third son has cut all ties with the rest of the family > 4. the fourth and fifth sons haven't even finished school and have > probably left the house too. > > I wouldn't want to point at Molly, and most of all at Arthur, but > I'm not sure those two aren't responsible for the estrangement in > some way or another of their 5 oldest kids... Sophierom replied : > I'm not really sure that Bill and Charlie's far-away jobs suggest > some sort of dysfunctional family. Emotional closeness doesn't > equal spacial closeness. Del answers : I agree that we can't draw a definite conclusion just from the fact that Bill and Charlie live far away. I'm just saying that it might be a hint of something going wrong. My sister and I both live away from our parents. In my case, it's just because I can't get a job any closer. In my sister's case, it's absolutely necessary to both my sister's and our mom's sanity : they systematically get on each other's nerves if they spend too much time together, even though they completely love each other. Sophierom said : > Besides, in a WW where one can apparate or travel through a quick > floo network, I don't think moving to Romania or Egypt is nearly as > a big a deal as it would be in our world. Del answers : But Bill and Charlie don't seem too keen to come and visit their family. We rarely hear of them coming over. Sophierom said : > Location issues aside, I'd argue that Arthur and Molly have done a > great job raising their sons, and all in all, their family dynamic > is a pretty healthy one. Del answers : I'm not sure I agree. The interactions we've seen between Percy, Fred, George, Ron and Ginny can't always be described as very healthy IMO. To me, the simple fact that Ron seems so overwhelmed by his five big brothers at the beginning of PS/SS is a sign that things aren't going that well between them. I understand that there's always a bit of competition between siblings, but this seems like way too much for me. My mother always made sure that we measured ourselves only according to our own capacities and personalities. She made sure my little sister wasn't overwhelmed by my academic successes, and she kept encouraging her to find her own talents and take pride in them. Ron apparently doesn't receive that kind of moral support from his parents. And also, the way Molly keeps giving Percy as an example to the twins always strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do. Those things are not healthy, not at all, and they do create rifts between the brothers. Sophierom said : > Indeed, I'd say that all the sons, even Percy, show a great deal of > independence, and if anything, this is a sign of good parenting. > Arthur and Molly taught their sons to pursue their dreams and stand > on their own ... even if it means being estranged or dropping out > of school. Del answers : I guess it all depends on what you consider good parenting. Personally, I intend to give my kids all the tools I can find for them to be happy. Being independent and pursuing their dreams are 2 of those tools. But being self-centered and self-serving, as Percy and even the twins have become, is not one of those tools. Family is necessary to achieve happiness, as Harry knows very well. Sophierom said : > Arthur and Molly should at least take some pride in the fact their > sons are independent adults. Del answers : In fact, Percy and the twins do not seem so independent to me. Percy has simply transferred his dependence on the MoM and Fudge in particular. And the twins depend on each other. They are independent from their family, sure, but then they spent 7 years at a boarding school, that helps. Don't get me wrong : I'm not saying that there's something wrong with the Weasleys for sure. I'm just saying that they show quite a few signs of dysfunction. And we don't know that much about Arthur and Molly's parenting ways. I just want to keep my eyes open. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 11:50:36 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:50:36 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89450 Frost wrote : > I like him, but not because he's a great perfect person. I like > him because his struggles remind me of my own, and that really lets me feel his humanity. And Sue commented : > My opinion of Harry has never been that he is perfect. No one is. > I only feel that the perspective that he is inately evil is off the > mark. Del goes "huh ?" : I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone on this list thinks Harry is inately evil. I'm probably one of those who less like Harry, but I don't think he's inately evil. I DO think that he's got an evil side, like everyone does, and that he gives in to it sometimes, like many people do. I DO think that his anger and his hurt COULD take him on the wrong path, but I also DO think that he's got what it takes to make the right choices. It's all up to him. He will have to choose. What I'm up against, is that adoring attitude I see too often in posts, about Harry being inherently "better" than everyone else. "Harry shows more compassion", "Harry is more magically powerful", "Harry is the only one worthy to become Head Boy", etc, etc... Well, no, I don't think so. Harry does have a great potential, like a lot of other students, including Draco, but what matters is what they are going to do with that potential. Sue : > He used an unforgivable curse, bad choice, not a bad person. Del answers : But our choices shape our personality ! One bad choice won't make him a bad person, but he has to realise how bad a choice it was, and decide never to do it again. Sue : > It seems to me then that as it would be biased and one sided to see > Harry as perfect in every way, it is equally as one sided to see > him as evil. He is HUMAN and he is YOUNG. Del answers : I do NOT see him as evil, but I DO fight for people to stop presenting him as inherently perfect and better than everyone else. > Sue (Who believes that Harry will prove how extrordinary he is by > the end of book 7) Del laughs : See ? You're doing it again :-) First you say Harry is a human being, and then you go on saying he is extraordinary. You're not necessarily technically wrong, but you make it sound like Harry is above all the rest, like he's the ONLY ONE who will prove how extraordinary he is. In my idea, quite a few other people, both young and older, will come to prove how extraordinary they can be, just as extraordinary as Harry ! It's a war, it's bound to bring to the light the best and the worst of everyone. Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 23 12:11:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:11:21 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > As to who is acting, suppose Snape knew that Lupin had been a > Death Eater, but was and is prevented from revealing this by the > Fidelius Charm. If Voldemort were Lupin's secret keeper, then > only he could reveal that Lupin is his spy. Obviously Voldemort > didn't protect all his DE's this way, but is there anything to say > that none of them were? > > Suppose then that Snape distrusts Lupin but is not sure where > his current loyalties lie -- until the night of the Shack. Snape does > believe everything he is told by Dumbledore regarding Sirius's > innocence. But Peter's escape proves to him that Lupin is still a > loyal DE, and that's why Snape outs Lupin as a werewolf. > > Throws a different light on everything, doesn't it? > I'm all for conspiracy theories, but somebody has to be a goodie! So far from the previous generation we have Snape (exDE), Peter (traitor), Sirius (about whom I have grave suspicions), now there's Lupin!ESE. Why not go the whole hog? James DE perhaps, and Lily!ESE. (Actually, I could make a half-assed case for Lily!ESE based on my AGGIE post (77800) - enamoured of Snape, drawn into evil ways, Voldy reluctant to zap her because he knows she's sympathetic to his aims; add in Choices (86478) and Harry can start looking a bit iffy too.) True, a case can be made for Lupin!ESE, starting with why he wasn't affected by the Dementor on the train, but DE? Not so happy with that one. Why would he be protected by a Fedelius charm? If the DEs used them for mutual protection how come Snape can shop a load of 'em to Crouch? What's so special about Lupin that he gets his own personal protection? I still think he's DD's agent, not Voldy's. Deliberately brought in at the last minute as DADA teacher and watch-dog(!) when news of Sirius' escape broke, to make sure things didn't go totally pear-shaped in an encounter like the Shrieking Shack fiasco. But I'm puzzled why Lupin should be so interested in the Trio going to Hagrids hut in the first place. The way the passage is written, it seems that Hagrids hut is a blank spot on the map; he doesn't see Pettigrew on the map until they have *left* the hut - or at least that's what he claims. I don't think I believe him. I think he knew exactly where Scabbers was all along and was keeping an eye on him. Almost certainly he's guessed where Sirius was hiding out, too. He was waiting for it all to come together. I'm too attached to my Devious!DD and Puppetmaster!DD theories; DD planned for a confrontation between Harry and Sirius. Not in the exact way it happened maybe, but to be ready to take any opportunity presented and Lupin was his instrument and moderating influence. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 12:27:35 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:27:35 -0000 Subject: Percy versus Neville (was : Re: Ron is like Percy ) (long...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89452 "sophierom" wrote: > So, just a few minutes ago, when I was reading through part of GOF, > I began to think a bit about the way Percy handles teasing versus > the way Neville handles it. (snip) > But, I was also struck by Neville's laugh. I don't think this makes > Fred and George's thoughtless, attention-getting antics any better; > but I certainly love Neville all the more for the way he's handled > the situation. If Percy had been able to laugh at his own > embarrassing situations, even just once, I'd like Percy a bit more, > too. (snip) > So, Percy may be a "victim" when it comes to Fred and George, but > he can't (or won't) use his embarrassing, sometimes painful, > experiences to make him a stronger person. Neville also needs to > learn how to turn himself from a victim to a survivor (particularly > in Snape's class), but I think he's got the right idea when he > laughs at himself in genuinely silly situations like the canary > scene. Del comments : Very nice analysis ! But you know what ? I feel the opposite way about Percy and Neville :-) Neville reminds me of myself. When I was a teenager, I would always be the first one to laugh at myself, to make fun of myself, so that nobody else could do it first. I had pretty much no self-esteem, and I kept walking over myself. And when someone else did too, I would just pretend it was "tickling" me. I would never admit it was hurting me. And at the time, I would never have dreamed of demanding that someone stop doing something that hurt me. So when I read of Neville laughing in the face of abuse, or just dismissing things, I can't help but wonder if he does it because he truly doesn't care, or because he doesn't think he deserves any better anyway ? Somehow, I have a feeling the second option is right, especially when he introduces himself as "nobody" to Luna in OoP. And also the way he asks Hermione to the Yule Ball, because she's the only one who's always been nice to him so he doesn't have to fear a mocking refusal... Percy, on the other hand, I admire. He dares standing for himself, for his right to be respected. He's not afraid of showing off when he does something right. He's not afraid to demand respect for his accomplishments and authority. Sophierom : > In many ways, it seems to me that Percy should have the self > confidence to laugh at himself a bit more. Unlike Neville, he did > grow up with parents who have praised him (we see Neville's Gran > berating him for his forgetfulness, etc.); also unlike Neville, > he's been recognized as a great student (Percy was prefect then > headboy, and probably the top of his class in every course; Neville > is the laughing stock of Snape's potion class, probably mediocre in > most of his other classes, only doing well in Herbology). Del answers : Things are not always as simple as they seem. It's true that Neville's Gran hasn't been exactly helpful. But there was Uncle Algie, who always believed in him, and keeps encouraging him. On the other hand, Percy was ever only acknowledged and recognised as a good student and an obedient boy. He's imprisoned in his role of the Good Son, as someone else put it. Sophierom : > But, Percy can't laugh. I think this must have something to do > with the fact that Fred and George are his own brothers ... that > Percy needs their approval more than he would a peer's. But if I > could somehow use a time turner and speak to Percy when he was a > bit younger, I would have begged him to try laughing, just once, > when the twins poked fun at him. Not only would he have been > stronger for it, but the twins proabably would have stopped picking > on him because they wouldn't have gotten the reaction they wanted. Del answers : It didn't make me stronger to learn to laugh at myself. In fact, it made me weaker. It was the ultimate acknowledgement of my worthlessness, to laugh at myself. Not to mention that laughing at yourself never stops a bully from bullying you. They just go further and further in the bullying, until they get you to the point where you can't laugh anymore and start crying (I'm a girl :-). Sophierom : > At the very least, it could raise the question of why JKR wants us > to like certain characters over others ... and I really do believe > that in the end, she wants us to admire Neville (a butt of many > jokes) more than Percy (also the butt of jokes). Del answers : Oh ! I've learned not to trust JKR anymore :-) She had us fear and hate Sirius for a whole book, before making us love him and designate him as one of our favorite characters, and then she killed him ! So... Del From sophierom at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 12:49:38 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:49:38 -0000 Subject: Umbridge's Motives at TBAY (Longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89453 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "augustinapeach" wrote: these same questions about her. But others have argued so > convincingly that she was not connected with Voldemort that I forced it from my mind. But now these ---- and all those questions are back. I just don't know whether I'm going to a D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. or a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L." > > George blinked. "What?" > > "Is it a D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. ? Dolores Is Surely A Spy To Eliminate > Resistance, or is it a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L ? Dolores Umbridge is Not > Giving Help In Lord (V's) Lark? The problem is, there are can(n) ons on each side. Every time I think I have it figured out, I realize the other explanation is also perfectly plausible." >> "Most of the time I think the evidence points to a > D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. <"But Hogwarts is also where the > D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R. starts to come apart. Umbridge's cover story of > trying to eliminate threats to the Ministry is completely consistent with her behavior at Hogwarts ? maybe it is a D.U.N.G.H.I.L.L., > after all> Sophierom: First, I want to say that I think this is a great post, and Augustina really does a nice job providing evidence to support the Umbridge as LV spy theory (D.I.S.A.S.T.E.R.) She's almost completely convinced me that this theory is correct. For me, the major stumbling block for such a theory isn't due to a detail or piece of evidence, but a larger thematic issue. If dear Dolores is firmly in the LV camp, then JKR has reinforced the idea that the bad guys are really bad and that the good guys are really good ... and this just seems to easy, too black and white for some of the bigger issues she's dealing with in this series. Granted, it is a children's book, and plenty of adult stories (novels, movies, etc.) accept this notion that the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, end of story. But I think HP is more sophisticated than that. We have, of course, already seen a more complex portrayal of the "good" guys and the "bad" guys; Crouch, Sr. isn't the most charming of heroes, and Snape, as past DE, has presumably been redeemed. But Umbridge is just so bad, so mean, so nasty, that it would be really interesting, I think, if she were working as an independent agent of sorts. It seems too easy, thematically, for her to be a Voldemort sidekick. If Umbridge is working for her own sense of ambition at the ministry, then it becomes the ruthless search for power for its own sake that is intrinsically bad; evil is not limited to one particular person or group. Sophierom From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 13:37:32 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:37:32 -0000 Subject: Albus Dumbledore must die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smirnov3" wrote: > It's true, if the Harry Potter series is to follow the classic 'Epic Fantasy' motif. In all good epic fantasy, the main protagonist starts off with a mentor, who takes him and teaches him how to be a hero and a mensch. But as the protagonist reaches maturity, the mentor always dies, or 'goes away. In Star Wars, that was Obi-one and Yoda. Both died. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf disappears, but Tolkien is more soft hearted, and has him return for the final curtain. > But I think JK Rowling is going to continue to push the series in a darker direction, and I don't think she will be soft on Dumbledore. Meri here: Actually, both Obi-Wan (and to some extent, Yoda) came back to help Luke even after their deaths, so they both had ressurections just like Gandalf. And as to JKR being harder on her characters than Tolkien (or George Lucas), I also believe that Dumbledore is doomed but, as we have seen through his friendship with Nicolas Flamel, Dumbledore isn't afraid to die, and believes death to be nothing more than the next great adventure (and from someone who's lived a life like he has, that is really saying something, as my imagination can hardly comprehend the adventures that old Dumbles must have had!) I am also of the humble opinion that if JKR decides to follow the classic pattern and kill off Albus then he too will enjoy a temporary ressurection, if only to give Harry one more bit of advice, though as to how he will die or what he'll say when (or if) he comes back are a mystery to me. smirnov3 asks again: In that same vein, I think she is going to take a fairly dark, if not unrealist approach to the romance in the series: I expect there to be at least one romantic relationship in book 6 that fails horribly (hey, how long does the average teen romance last, anyway) . Will it be Ron and Hermione? Harry and Luna? I don't know, but don't expect any lasting relationships in the series until the final book. Meri here: Well, we've allready seen at least two relationships fail miserably: Harry and Cho (I was pretty sure that this one was going to fail, just because the hero hardly ever starts off falling for the right girl, and was actually glad when it did, simply because Cho was acting like an idiot, IMO) and Ginny and Michael Corner (I for one did not see Ginny's massive character development coming, and was quite pleased with it, and also with Ron's wheedling to get Ginny and Harry together). I don't know what's in store romance- wise, but sometimes when you meet the right person, teen love can last forever: my grandparents met in high school and will soon be celebrating their 50th anniversary, so it could happen. Anyway, some good points that are only making my thrist for HP #6 stronger! Meri - heading back to lurkdom and college. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Jan 23 13:54:56 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:54:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Albus Dumbledore must die. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89455 In a message dated 1/23/2004 8:46:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, Meri (meriaugust at yahoo.com) writes: I am also of the humble opinion that if JKR decides to follow the classic pattern and kill off Albus then he too will enjoy a temporary ressurection, if only to give Harry one more bit of advice, though as to how he will die or what he'll say when (or if) he comes back are a mystery to me. ********************************************************** Sherrie here: I'm not all that sure that Albus will come back, except in memory. I see HP being more related to King Arthur than to Tolkien - and I can't recall any version of the Arthurian cycle in which Merlin, once sealed in his tree or cave or wherever, comes back to the world of the living. (All right, Mary Stewart, sort of, but none of the classic versions does.) I think Albus, once gone, will be gone, except as people invoke the wisdom within themselves that they've learned from him. The only way I MIGHT see him making a "guest appearance" is if we were to discover that good old Sybill's true talent is as a trance channel. Sherrie (who has loved the Arthur legends since she was about three) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kcawte at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 23 14:29:37 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (slytherinspirit) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:29:37 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <004b01c3e1a4$13bac800$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89456 I'm replying to my own post because I wanted to add that I agree with the original poster regarding the use of mudblood. it's a deadly insult, we shouldn't be using it (especiallyy if we're using it about characters we like). If we start throwing the term around in everyday language it uses all it's impact. I had a brief image there of Hermione trying to get the other muggleborn students to use the word themselves to 'reclaim' it. *shudders* Scary thought that. K From lfreeman at mbc.edu Fri Jan 23 14:54:23 2004 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: Flitwick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89457 This may be movie contamination, but I wonder if Flitwick isn't secretly half elf. (Before the movie, I merely pictured him as an extremely short human... in the film he reminded me of a Munchkin). Elves, as a group, seem especially good at Charms (Dobby made the pudding hover without a wand, and they certainly use charms in their houscleaning duties) , making it a natural subject for him to teach, and the box of sugar mice he slipped Harry as a thank-you after the Skeeter interview in OotP seemed like a bit of elfish mischief. It certainly falls within Dumbledore's character to put a half-elf on the faculty, along with the half-giant and and the cenataur. Another possibility is that he's half-goblin, but he seems too good-tempered for that. Louise (who wants to see Sprout and Flitwick in the Order!) From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jan 23 15:13:14 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:13:14 -0000 Subject: Occlumency + Spy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, electrogirl > wrote: > > ...edited... > > >> > > bboy_mn: > > Well, it won't come as a suprise to anyone, but I have a theory about > this, although I've posted it many times, so I'll try and stick to the > short version. > > I believe many years ago before Voldemort's first defeat, Voldmort > sent Snape as a Spy to join Dumbledore. So any signs that Snape is > working with Dumbledore are exactly what Voldemort expects to see. June: The problem with that idea is that it is somewhat damaged by Snape's assertion to Umbridge in OOP that he has been a teacher at Hogwarts for 14 years. Counting backwards that means he was appointed after Voldemort's fall (around about a year after). This does not necessarily preclude Snape having some kind of earlier association with Dumbledore that Voldemort engineered, but that has not yet been revealed or hinted at by canon. Steve: > What Voldemort doesn't know is that Snape really has gone over to the > good side and is truly working for Dumbledore. Or at least, that is > what we are being lead to believe. > > I can't see any other way that Voldemort or the Death Eaters would > continue to associate with Snape, or for that matter, even allow Snape > to continue to live. The only explanation I can come up with that > seems likely is that Voldemort sent Snape to join Dumbledore, so > Voldemort would have a trusted spy in Dumbledore's camp. June: Snape may well be doing the classic double-double routine, trading one set of information for another, or misinforming one of the sides he is working for, either at the behest of whichever master DOES command his true loyalty, or under some agenda of his own - I personally believe this is the case, and that Snape is furthering his own agenda. That might, of course, serve the greater good. Steve: > Naturally, to be a spy and be accepted by Dumbledore, Snape would have > to bring Dumbledore some pretty juicy information about the Death > Eater activities, and Snape, to stay in good graces with Voldemort, > would have to provide some valuable information about Dumbledore. With > Snape now working as a double agent, spying for both sides, each side > has to accept some degree of betrayal in order for Snape to maintain > his cover. June: I go with the rather bald assertion of Dumbledore in OOP "I trust Severus Snape" because it is so very bald, uncompromising, and he does not even seem to feel that he has to justify that belief in any way. That signifies to me unshakeable and indeed, unqualified trust. There obviously is a reason behind this, and that is equally obviously (to me) going to be a very important piece of backstory or plot. > > Now the question becomes, which side is Snape REALLY working for? > Typically Double Agent Spies ultimately are working for which ever > side wins. In Snape's case, I believe he truly is working for the good > side, but to maintain his cover, he may be compelled to do some > terrible things before the series ends. > > If someone can give me a better, and most important, a LIKELY > explanation other than my own, I'd like to hear it. Snape for Snape. For reasons of revenge perhaps, a Dark Lord who failed to deliver for the impoverished purebloods (perhaps...), some past injury (I won't list the possibles - we all know what they are), even a view that the Death Eaters are a bunch of hamfisted idiots (how many failed attempts to off the Potters and the Longbottoms?!) Outcome not necessarily disastrous for the side of good. As long as good delivers the goods... My thoughts. June From TonyaMinton at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 15:21:54 2004 From: TonyaMinton at hotmail.com (tonyaminton) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:21:54 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > Actually, Harry didn't see his own ink figure on the map until > > he'd stepped outside the classroom where Fred and George > > gave it to him. > > "He pulled out the map again and saw, to his astonishment, that > > a new ink figure had appeared upon it, labeled *Harry Potter*." > > -emphasis orginal. > > > > So there are dead zones on the map. If Peter feared discovery > > after faking his death, he'd naturally look for a place that > > Crookshanks would avoid also and Hagrid's hut fills the bill > > there,too, since Hagrid dislikes cats. > > > I've always imagined that Harry appeared on the Map not because of > dead zones, but because the Map shows only the mischief-makers and > people directly connected with their mischief. > > The people Harry picks out the first time he sees the Map are > Dumbledore, Peeves and Ms. Norris, 'people' he needs to watch out > for while wandering around the castle (POA, p. 193). Then the > second trip into Hogsmeade, Snape and Neville both show up on the > Map--two people who are inadvertently messing up Harry's plans (POA > 276-277). Lupin sees HRH on the Map on the night they are sneaking > out of the castle. > > Then in GOF, Harry sees Fake!Moody--definitely someone up to > mischief--in Snape's office. > > Now it's possible Harry only mentions certain names, but why would > all the students and faculty show up if the Map is protection for > the Marauder? You'd have to sort through 95% of the Hogwarts > population to find a couple of people. > > It would make more sense if the Map is bewitched to only show those > people you have an interest in seeing, 'enemies' or people who will > unknowingly thwart your plans. Or bewitched to actually KNOW who > will hinder your plan and show you those people. Now *that* would be > an impressive bit of magic! > > Jen Reese Now Tonya: I have always thought taht the map only shows people who are moving around. So if someone is still, like sitting in a chair, it would not show them. Canon says things like Peeves bogging, DD pacing, Snape moving...... Don't have the books with me. So my thought was that Peter didn't show up until he was in motion, moving out of Hagrid's house. What do you all think?? Tonya From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 15:25:22 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (Doriane) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:25:22 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89460 Hitomi said : > Harry is incredibly strong-willed, and I think it ignorant of > readers, who don't believe Harry has special abilities. Del answers : I believe that Harry has qualities. Everyone does. He's strong- willed, for sure. Or pig-headed, as you choose ;-) And he has some special abilities, like flying or resisting the Imperius Curse. But I don't believe he's the only one to possess those abilities. This unique combination, yes, but not those abilities in themselves. Hitomi : > The kid is going to have to defeat Lord Voldemort, something no > other wizard can do. The kid has special abilities, we just are > not entirely sure what they are yet Del answers : Yes, but you see, if it so happened that Harry could defeat LV *only* because of some special ability that only he has, then I'd be mightily disappointed. As Frost put it : > If he were so specially gifted, as you seem to see him, I > would be bored. How many times have I read about perfect > characters, or characters who "aren't perfect" but are still > somehow always in the right. Wonderfully gifted characters don't > come up against real struggles; certainly not ones I can identify > with. I find amazing beauty in a character who is no more gifted > than those around him, and yet he strives and through his > struggles, becomes something more. I think Harry does have some > gifts and talents, but no more than other people. I would hate for > him to become a "ubercharicter." The type who runs into a battle > and then you know that the battle will be won. I've already read > that story, a thousand times. It's boring. Worthless. I agree, I couldn't agree more !!! Hitomi : > And I'm going to keep repeating this quote in my signature, because > the Harry-bashing is annoying me to death. Del retorts : And all the Harry-worshipping annoys me too. I don't want an idol, I want a role-model. I don't want a perfect hero, I want a flawed human being who gives his best. Hitomi : > Why on earth are you reading a series named after him, if you don't > like him? Del : Huh ? What has that got to do with anything ? A title is just that, a title. Harry is the main character, I agree, but nowhere have I ever read that mains characters should be idolised. In fact, I have a strong tendency to dislike main characters because they are way too often over-perfect. I'm generally more attracted to the sidekicks, the minor characters, the ones that have to have faults so that the main character looks even more perfect. In our case, I'm much more interested in Hermione and Neville, Sirius and Lupin, even Peter and Bella, than in Harry. Hitomi : >(Not to mention, how can you not love Harry? His character is > beyond beautiful.) Del answers : Bof. I don't share your feelings, sorry. Harry is a nice character all right, and a *very* interesting one, but I'm definitely not head- over-heels about him. Hermione, yes. Harry, no. Frost said : > I can only speak for myself, and I will. Harry may be a beautiful > character, but it is because he is flawed. As an artist, I know > that while most people tend to like things that are perfectly > symmetrical, it is that which is unsymmetrical that is more > interesting, and more worth your time to wrestle with. Del answers : First of all, I'd like to thank you Frost for that fantastic post in my defence and in the defence of all those who do not worship Harry. I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said, even if I don't like Harry as much as you do. And as a fellow artist (only amateur, alas !), I'll add that I find perfection sterile and forbidding. It doesn't leave any place for progress, and aiming for it is the surest way to end up very unhappy with whatever has been accomplished, no matter how good. Frost : > I think its fair for us to be frustrated with Harry. JKR has > managed to make him very human, very real. And to say that he is > special because he has extra talent just steals that away. Del answers : Exactly ! I just wish people didn't try and turn Harry into something "more" than just a human boy. He's just a human boy with his very own load of problems and talents. The only thing that's *really* out of the ordinary about him is his mission : to vanquish LV. Which is precisely why so many of us are ready to believe that maybe he isn't the Prophecy Boy : because it doesn't fit in with how normal he is otherwise. Frost said : > Most of all, the Harry bashing that you complain about is in a way, > some of the greatest praise JKR can get. They aren't complaining > about how poorly Harry was written. They are complaining about him > as though he were real; a person that they know and want to kick > the crap out of for being a brat. (ok, maybe that is a > little strong, but you get my point.) Del answers : Absolutely. That's precisely because he's written so well, because I can understand him so well, because I can relate to him so well, that I don't want people to idolise him. Because it would mean I've got it all wrong somehow. I mean, I'm not a hero, I'm not a superwoman, and still I feel like I understand Harry. I have sympathy and compassion for the human boy Harry. But if someone tells me that he's in fact a superhuman, well, I'll stop being able to relate to him, because since it's not the way I see him, I must obviously have read him completely wrong all the way, and I in fact don't know him at all. And I can't relate to someone I don't know. Back to Hitomi : > I just meant that as human and ordinary as Harry is, there are > things about him that are special, and I was replying to a > hypothetical reader that would refrain from realizing or mentioning > that, not to an actual reader on this list. Del answers : Just because I don't mention that Harry has qualities doesn't mean I don't believe it. But when I'm talking about one of his faults, I don't see the point of talking about his qualities. And again, yes Harry is special, but no more than anyone else. Everyone is special in some way, we just happen to know more about Harry, that's all. I mean, Hermione taught herself NEWT-level spells, but nobody here goes to great length to convince everyone else that Hermione is just ten cuts above everyone of us. So yes Harry has great qualities, but that doesn't mean he's "better" than everyone else. Hitomi : > Another point I want to clarify, because I never made it clear, and > it seems to have given the wrong impression: I never said I thought > Harry was perfect. I don't. Far from. He's actually astoundingly > ordinary. Almost... uniquely ordinary. Del answers : But they are ALL uniquely ordinary, that's precisely the beauty of those books ! All of them : Harry, Ron, Hermione, Snape, etc... OK, a few of them are too cartoonish (Draco, Crabbe and Goyle, etc...), but most of the main characters are so unique and yet so ordinary, it's amazing ! Hitomi : > And what I meant by beautiful was loving, giving, compassionate - > the things we all strive for in our character development. Del answers : OK, that's one point where we'll have to agree to disagree. Harry never struck me as so incredibly loving and compassionate. He's definitely not the kind who makes me feel comfortable right away, as loving and compassionate people do. And I probably couldn't even be his friend, because he's so demanding and so harsh with them sometimes, I would get my feelings bruised too easily. When I read the books, I'm way too often made to feel uncomfortable by Harry's thoughts and actions to find him loving and compassionate. Hitomi : > The bashing I tire of is usually in reference to Harry's using the > Cruciatus curse at the end of Book 5, those who have stated he is > ruthless, completely immature, hateful, etc. I've already posted > my thoughts on said argument, so I will not be redundant and > reiterate them. Harry is just a beautifully loving person. Del answers : Can't you see ? We just have a different view of Harry. You see him as a loving person, I don't. I see him as someone who is dangerously giving in to his bad side, you don't. I guess it all depends on our personal histories and sensitivities. We're discussing *feelings* here, not facts, so of course we can't get anywhere ! Hitomi said : > It's what makes his character so compassionate to begin with, that > understanding of the imperfection in himself and others. Del answers : I guess we read what we want in book characters. I haven't read that in Harry. Hitomi said : > He has special abilities, he has talent, the Sorting Hat made that > clear in Book 1. I don't mean he's invincible, not at all, I just > mean he has his talents as we all do, and again, the posts I have > become frustrated over are the ones that failed to mention that > fact. Del answers : And I have become frustrated at the posts that fail to mention that Harry is a human being with flaws, that mention only his qualities and talents, or even worse : that want to deny his flaws, because of his qualities !? Hitomi : > I was referring to those who say he is hateful, ruthless, etc. > That just isn't Harry. Del answers : That just isn't YOUR Harry. We all have our own idea of who and what Harry is. We all have our own way to react to Harry's personality. Some would be attracted to him, others would be repelled. I would be repelled by someone who abuses his friends the way he does in OoP, no matter the reason. I couldn't trust a so-called friend who let me down for a *broom*, even though I had only his safety in mind. Just a few examples of why Harry's personality doesn't appeal to me. Hitomi : > I think the character Harry has always reminded me most of, in his > beauty, heroism, and extreme imperfection, (and perhaps becuase we > read him as a child, too) is Ender Wiggin (the Ender series by > Orson Scott Card). Though who are meant to lead and protect are > the ones who believe they are most undeserving. > "I'm not one to despise other people for their sins. I haven't > found one yet, that I didn't say inside myself, I've done worse > than this" (Ender from Speaker for the Dead, Orson Scott Card 350). > > "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him > well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love > him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what > they want, what they believe, and not love them the way the love > themselves" > (Ender from Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card 238). Del answers : I don't think we've seen Harry get there yet. He's very far from it still. He can't even figure Draco out, let alone Pettigrew, Bellatrix or LV ! As for loving them... One last example : when I saw "X-Men the Movie", I immediately was drawn to Wolverine, not Scott. Wolverine is the one who is fighting to do good, he's the one who has flaws and has to overcome them to work for the general good. Scott, OTOH, seems to be *born* "good", he doesn't seem to have any internal conflict or whatever, he never had a choice but to be good, he never had to make a conscious decision to become an X-Men. He's flat, he's boring, while Wolverine is exciting. I love my Wolverine-Harry, I'd be bored to death with a Scott-Harry. Del From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 23 16:03:30 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:30 -0000 Subject: Do trolls have tailors? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89461 Re-reading The Philosopher's Stone, I came across something that seems to have passed me by on the first umpteen readings.It's on Page 130 when Harry retrieves his wand from the troll's nostril. . " He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy grey glue. "Urgh - troll bogies." He wiped it on the troll's trousers" The troll's trousers...The troll's trousers!!!!I had always imagined that the troll, if it wore anything at all, would be sporting a loin cloth, like the cave troll in LOTR. Presumably baby trolls (if you can picture such a thing) aren't born wearing trousers, like Pip's deceased little brothers in Great Expectations. So where would a troll's trousers come from? Is there a special trolls' outfitter? I should imagine they would have to be made to order, given the unusual measurements of your average troll. I have now got this damned stupid picture in my mind of the troll wearing jeans. Sylvia (who really ought to have something better to do than worry about trolls' inside leg measurements) From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 23 16:13:19 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:13:19 -0000 Subject: Albus Dumbledore must die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89462 MadameSSnape (Sherrie)wrote: I think Albus, once gone, will be gone, except as people invoke the wisdom within themselves that they've learned from him. The only way I MIGHT see him making a "guest appearance" is if we were to discover that good old Sybill's true talent is as a trance channel. Arya now: Dumbledore's death would not surprise me in the least. However, I think we can safely assume he will indeed always be around in a way-- as a portrait. Every Hogwarts Headmaster has a portrait. As one of the greatest Wizards of the age, he's likely to perhaps have even more than one out and about the WW. We shall surely see him in this way and I'll bet he's painted with a tin of lemon sherbets, too. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 23 16:16:54 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:16:54 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slytherinspirit" wrote: > I'm replying to my own post because I wanted to add that I agree with > the original poster regarding the use of mudblood. it's a deadly > insult, we shouldn't be using it (especiallyy if we're using it about > characters we like). If we start throwing the term around in everyday > language it uses all it's impact. > >From henceforth I shall use it on site at every appropriate opportunity. I refuse to be censored in the use of a manufactured word for a type of imaginary fantasy person. IMO your attitude shows an unfortunate tendency for confusing fiction and reality and is exactly the sort of obsessive PC thought control and lack of a sense of proportion that my original post was intended to hold up to ridicule. If you go searching for something to be offended by, you are certain to find it; to the suspicious everything is suspect and paranoia sets the standards. I'm also amused by your implication that it is more acceptable when used for people you don't like. Self-imposed double standards, or what? Kneasy From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 23 16:28:13 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:28:13 -0000 Subject: The MAP & Ron=DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89464 "tonyaminton" wrote: The people Harry picks out the first time he sees the Map are Dumbledore, Peeves and Ms. Norris, 'people' he needs to watch out for while wandering around the castle (POA, p. 193). --------------- I don't have my copy of books here at work to check this, but if you say Dumbledore has been spotted on the map, then wouldn't this be some fairly hard evidence that Dumbledore is indeed Albus Dumbleore and not Ron Weasley? Arya (who thinks it's odd that neither Harry nor the twins ever saw a Ron Weasley dot with a nearby Peter Pettigrew dot...) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Jan 23 16:44:36 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:44:36 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89465 kathryn: > > I'm replying to my own post because I wanted to add that I agree with > > the original poster regarding the use of mudblood. it's a deadly > > insult, we shouldn't be using it (especiallyy if we're using it about > > characters we like). If we start throwing the term around in everyday > > language it uses all it's impact. > > Kneasy: > From henceforth I shall use it on site at every appropriate opportunity. > > I refuse to be censored in the use of a manufactured word for a type > of imaginary fantasy person. IMO your attitude shows an unfortunate > tendency for confusing fiction and reality and is exactly the sort of > obsessive PC thought control and lack of a sense of proportion that > my original post was intended to hold up to ridicule. Oh, Kneasy, my dear old Muggle! I've been watching this thread with interest, wondering if it was safe to jump in, but I think that Kathryn's got to the crux of the matter here. For me, it's *not* about confusing fantasy with reality or excessive political correctness or anything like that. It's to do with the fact that when we read a work of fiction, we are expected for a time to suspend disbelief, to enter into that world. *In* that fictional world, we are told that Mudblood is a vile epithet. It enrages Ron. It enrages James. We are supposed to be enraged similarly. Kathryn is right that if we just start to use it as a synonym for Muggle, then it loses that impact (an impact it is hard enough to establish in the first place). We don't hear it as vile, because it's just part of our vocabulary. This is especially the case if we apply it to characters we like. Not double standards, just recognition of a psychological effect. So I think we diminish our own experience of the books by adopting the vocabulary of the fictional racists within them. (With the possible exception of some of those readers who identify with Slytherin House, of course.) I personally agree with those who say that Muggle is not a term of abuse, although it may display an attitude of the WW towards non- magic folk. These are two different things. I was intrigued by those who object to it because of the supposed similarity to other words containing a double 'g'; I should have thought it was pretty clearly derived, if anywhere, from the word 'mug', being slang for one who's a bit stupid or who doesn't understand, something which is consonant with the WW's rather patronising attitude towards Muggles. ~Eloise From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Jan 23 17:29:24 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:29:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Albus Dumbledore must die. Message-ID: <1cb.18574371.2d42b3f4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89466 In a message dated 1/23/2004 12:24:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, Arya (dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu) writes: Dumbledore's death would not surprise me in the least. However, I think we can safely assume he will indeed always be around in a way-- as a portrait. Every Hogwarts Headmaster has a portrait. As one of the greatest Wizards of the age, he's likely to perhaps have even more than one out and about the WW. We shall surely see him in this way and I'll bet he's painted with a tin of lemon sherbets, too *********************************************** Sherrie here: Gracious goodness, hand me the Stupid Hat! I'd forgotten about that - and I'm JUST rereading the part of OotP where the portraits of Dilys and the other fellow take a hand in things! But - suppose Albus's portrait doesn't get painted in time - or isn't complete when he dies? What happens then? Does the portrait only "come to life" if the subject is still alive when it's completed? Sherrie (who's thinking FAR too much today...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydenmill at msn.com Fri Jan 23 17:31:30 2004 From: sydenmill at msn.com (bohcoo) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:31:30 -0000 Subject: Do trolls have tailors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89467 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: In message 89461, Sylvia wrote: > Re-reading The Philosopher's Stone, I came across something that > seems to have passed me by on the first umpteen readings. It's on > Page 130 when Harry retrieves his wand from the troll's nostril. > . " He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll's nose. It > was covered in what looked like lumpy grey glue. > "Urgh - troll bogies." > He wiped it on the troll's trousers" > The troll's trousers...The troll's trousers!!!!I had always > imagined that the troll, if it wore anything at all, would be > sporting a loin cloth, like the cave troll in LOTR. So where would > a troll's trousers come from? Is there a special trolls' > outfitter? I should imagine they would have to be made to order, > given the unusual measurements of your average troll. I have now > got this damned stupid picture in my mind of the troll wearing > jeans. > > Sylvia Bohcoo: I just loved your post, Sylvia! Now that you mention it, where DID the troll get his britches? When reading the book, I, too, did not picture the troll clothed. In the movie, I was so overwhelmed by the fact that Harry wiped the troll boogers on his own robe that I didn't give another thought to the absence of the troll's "trousers." She should have said, "Troll's leg, chest, arm," anything but "trousers." So, it seems we had ourselves a GQ troll. . . Isn't that why we all keep rereading the books over and over? For me, something I have read fifteen times and never paid attention to will hit me the same way those Troll Trousers hit you. And, then you think -- "Is this significant? Is this a clue? Did anyone else notice this -- and, if so, what did they make of it?" Thanks for the good eye and for sharing yet another little JKR mystery to think about! Bohcoo From kcawte at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 24 01:49:18 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:49:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology References: Message-ID: <002d01c3e21c$543ecf70$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89468 Kneasy > > I refuse to be censored in the use of a manufactured word for a type > of imaginary fantasy person. IMO your attitude shows an unfortunate > tendency for confusing fiction and reality and is exactly the sort of > obsessive PC thought control and lack of a sense of proportion that > my original post was intended to hold up to ridicule. > If you go searching for something to be offended by, you are certain > to find it; to the suspicious everything is suspect and paranoia sets the > standards. > > I'm also amused by your implication that it is more acceptable when > used for people you don't like. Self-imposed double standards, or what? > > K Kneasy could you *please* actually read my messages before replying to them. My point was not that the term was offensive - since we don't live in JKR's world there is nobody here who could be offended by it. My point was that the term is supposed to have an impact when we hear it used by Draco or whoever because it is a rare and vile insult in that world and if we throw it around as nothing more than a synonym for muggleborn then it won't have that impact when we read it because it will not have those connotations for us. That is why it is especially important for me that we don't use it for characters we like. If we are using it to describe people we like then it loses all the insulting connotations for us. Personally I want to be able to feel the same sense of outrage while reading Draco's insults to Hermione that Ron does - not because it offends me in any way but because that is how JKR intends me to react - if the word mudblood is downgraded in my mind to simply another term for a muggleborn wizard then Ron's actions will seem more like a gross over-reaction and it will be harder to sympathise with him. And until or unless the Admin team declare the word a breach of the list rules then it's not an attempt to censor you, no one is forbidding you to use the word, we are simply saying why we think it would be wiser not to use it. If you really want to keep using it then go right ahead. I can't force you not to and I wouldn't want to try, but I still think the word should be used sparingly in order to preserve the impression JKR is trying to convey when she uses it. And frankly the only thing about this discussion that is likely to offend me is the way you seem to have decided what the people you are arguing with think and mean and are arguing against that instead of what we actually say. K From strom5150 at charter.net Fri Jan 23 17:46:16 2004 From: strom5150 at charter.net (Danielle) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:46:16 -0000 Subject: Is HP related to Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ilubom" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Just want to start off by saying "hello", I'm new here. Now Danielle: Hello! I generally lurk here as opposed to active involvement, but I wanted to answer your post. It is a topic that's been discussed in the past, so hopefully I can provide some enlightenment. IL writes: > I've got this theory that is bugging me at the moment. Is it > possible that Harry is related to Voldemort? There are some parts of > books that suggest he may be. Danielle again: I used to wonder this myself. However, there is an interview with JKR, and I'm sorry that I don't have a link to the transcript. Perhaps a more organized listee can provide that. In this interview, JKR says that having Voldy and Harry related would be "too Star Wars." So, it's highly doubtful they are. And, when you think about it, she's probably right. IL continues: > 3. LV was reluctant to kill Lily - he only killed her because she > would not get out of the way. When LV is speaking through Quirrell > he says that Harry's mother need not have died. Why wouldn't he want > to kill her if she was working against him - he is not exactly a > humanitarian! (on the other hand he thought nothing of killing his > father and grandparents so even if Lily was a relative it should > not have influenced him). Danielle again: This topic has also been discussed, but to my knowledge there has been no agreement yet on why Voldy was willing to spare Lily's life if she had gotten out of his way. And some of the theories are pretty gross! It's something I hope we find out in the next two books. My own feeling, at the risk of sounding like a Voldy apologist (which I'm not), is that he has not yet personally killed anyone that we know of unless that person has gotten in his way. He says he killed Bertha Jorkins only because he had already destroyed her mind, and she was useless as a person. Frank Bryce was in his way in that he was going to call the police if he left the Riddle House. Cedric was in the way in the graveyard. And Lily was in the way when she blocked Harry from him. If she had moved (as if she would have!) she would not have been in the way, and by Voldy's warped reasoning, could have been spared. I admit, he doesn't need much of an excuse to consider someone "in the way." But that's the pattern I see. He doesn't expend his energy in that area unless he feels he has to. > 4. The comment made by the Sorting Hat that Harry had Slytherin's > power in him and would do well in that house. As LV is the "heir of > Slytherin" it may suggest a commonality of blood (although what DD > says about LV transferring his power to Harry when he failed to kill > him may also provide an explanation. Danielle replies: I think the Slytherin connection has to do with the backfired AK curse, which allowed Voldy to inadvertently transfer some of his powers to Harry. So, in that way, they are in fact related, if not by birth. And think about how Voldy got his body back. Harry's blood was one of the main ingredients in that potion, and Voldy himself says that Harry's blood affords him some of the same protection that Harry had due to his mother's sacrifice. So, in a sense, Voldy and Harry are now "blood brothers," definitely related physically, though not in the "regular" way. I'm sure that blood connection will play a major role in upcoming events. And, finally, the mind connection that Voldy and Harry share. Certainly a more intimate connection than most true blood relatives ever share. So, are they related? No, not in the traditional uncle or father or grandfather sense that I originally considered way back when. But they are more closely related than many true family members, based on the reasons I gave above. Well, perhaps this just muddied the water for you, but I hope not! Danielle From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Fri Jan 23 18:26:02 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:26:02 -0000 Subject: "Put yourself in my shoes"(Re: Harry and special abilities ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" wrote: > quoting Hitomi : > > > I think the character Harry has always reminded me most of, in his > > beauty, heroism, and extreme imperfection, (and perhaps becuase we > > read him as a child, too) is Ender Wiggin (the Ender series by > > Orson Scott Card). Though who are meant to lead and protect are > > the ones who believe they are most undeserving. > > > "I'm not one to despise other people for their sins. I haven't > > found one yet, that I didn't say inside myself, I've done worse > > than this" (Ender from Speaker for the Dead, Orson Scott Card 350). > > > > "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him > > well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love > > him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what > > they want, what they believe, and not love them the way the love > > themselves" > > (Ender from Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card 238). > > Del answers : > > I don't think we've seen Harry get there yet. He's very far from it > still. He can't even figure Draco out, let alone Pettigrew, Bellatrix > or LV ! As for loving them... Now me: True, Harry is far from understanding his enemies and, "as for loving them" he is even further at the moment. But what Hitomi says is interesting however: understanding someone implies, in some kind of way , identifying with them (you know, the old "Put yourself in my shoes"). I don't have much time to develop a theory about that at the moment, but it could be interesting regarding the end of the series and the way Harry could manage to defeat Voldemort, if he is really the Prophecy Boy. How it will work, I don't know. It's rather an intuition I have. But in my opinion, JKR didn't write things such as "The Dark Lord will mark him as an equal"(OotP) " there are strange likenesses between us, Harry Potter" (CoS); she didn't create the Mirror of Erised, she didn't make Harry say " I'm never going over to the Dark Side" (PS/SS) without an intention: putting him in Tom Riddle's shoes. She did it already in OotP, making Harry have a dream of himself being the Dark Lord. When it happens,(OotP, chapter 26), Harry sees his own reflection in a *mirror*, and what he sees is Voldemort's face. The way Harry's mind and Voldemort's interact can't be just a detail. I don't think Harry will turn evil, at least definitely; I'm not sure either that it will lead necessarily to a "love and compassion save the day" ending. But I have the feeling that Harry will have to understand Tom/ Voldemort, and why not, to force him into understanding him. I also think that, in some kind of way, understanding Voldemort will lead him to face himself, with his flaws and qualities, and then will have to choose what he wants to do with what he sees. In other words, he will have to face his own consciousness (yes, I know, I always say that; apology for the redundancy). Del: > One last example : when I saw "X-Men the Movie", I immediately was > drawn to Wolverine, not Scott. Wolverine is the one who is fighting > to do good, he's the one who has flaws and has to overcome them to > work for the general good. Scott, OTOH, seems to be *born* "good", he > doesn't seem to have any internal conflict or whatever, he never had > a choice but to be good, he never had to make a conscious decision to > become an X-Men. He's flat, he's boring, while Wolverine is exciting. > I love my Wolverine-Harry, I'd be bored to death with a Scott- Harry. I see what you mean; perfect heroes always bothered me too. Harry is a character I love because he has flaws and qualities, because he is "just Harry", an average human brother. While he is "just Harry", he doesn't deserve idolatry, he doesn't deserve blame; he deserves tolerance. For that reason, I forgive him his weaknesses, I celebrate the qualities he shows, because he's facing a situation that is everything but normal. But he is there, and he does what he can. What would we do if it were *our* situation? You know, the old "Put yourself in my shoes" Amicalement, Iris From cubs9911 at aol.com Fri Jan 23 18:32:22 2004 From: cubs9911 at aol.com (cubs99111) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:32:22 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89471 > wrote: I just finished reading Harry Potter and > The Sorcerer's Stone for the 3rd or 4th time and I was just thinking > were all those protections really necessary ? I am mean Fluffy the > Three headed dog, The Giant Chess set, The Flying Keys, The Potions > riddle and the Troll and finally the Mirror Erised. Why did > Dumbledore go through all that to protect the stone. Wouldn't the > Fidelius Charm be a much better form of protection with Dumbledore > himself being secret ? I always wondered why Dumbledore had all those protections up, but for a different reason. If the stone would only become available to a person who wanted to find it but not use it, then Quirrel would never have been able to get it anyway so what was the use of all the tests. Similarly I have a probelm with the prophecy in OOP. If Dumbledore knew it already and they didn't want Voldemort to get it than instead of guarding it, they should have just sent someone in there to knock it off the wall with a spell and break it and then they would never have to worry about Voldemort getting it. JR From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 23 19:03:32 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:03:32 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89472 Tigerstorm: >>I was just thinking were all those protections really necessary ? I am mean Fluffy the Three headed dog, The Giant Chess set, The Flying Keys, The Potions riddle and the Troll and finally the Mirror Erised. Why did Dumbledore go through all that to protect the stone. Wouldn't the Fidelius Charm be a much better form of protection with Dumbledore himself being secret ? JR: >> I always wondered why Dumbledore had all those protections up, but for a different reason. If the stone would only become available to a person who wanted to find it but not use it, then Quirrel would never have been able to get it anyway so what was the use of all the tests. << As Dumbledore says, the mirror has caught many who were blind to its dangers. Only someone who had a strong desire to find the Stone would try to get past the protections, and if they hadn't been warned they would then find themselves captivated by the Mirror. As long as he retains his vapor form, Voldemort cannot die, and therefore will outlast the Secret Keeper. If the Secret Keeper uses the Stone, that risks revealing its whereabouts. JR: Similarly I have a probelm with the prophecy in OOP. If Dumbledore knew it already and they didn't want Voldemort to get it than instead of guarding it, they should have just sent someone in there to knock it off the wall with a spell and break it and then they would never have to worry about Voldemort getting it.<< The same argument applies to the Stone. But Dumbledore couldn't destroy it until he got Flamel's permission because it didn't belong to him. The Prophecy Orb belongs to the Ministry. Pippin From rredordead at aol.com Fri Jan 23 19:20:31 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:20:31 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89473 I have a question regarding Lily Evens Potter. Is she the same age as James Potter? We all assume she is, putting her in the same year as him at Hogwarts, but I'm not sure that is so. I'm looking for any canon to support the idea that they were both the same age. And I really looking for specific canon information. Not things like `when they left school they joined the Order' ? which doesn't necessarily prove they left at the same time. One reason this bothers me is in the pensive scene in Snape's Worst Memory, Chapter 28, OotP - American Ed., there is no mention of Lily in the exam room. She comes in to our conscious as sitting by the lake outside. It strikes me as odd that after the jolt of seeing his father in front of him in the Great Hall, Harry doesn't look for his mum. Harry's attention is taken from James back 4 rows to Sirius, then on to Remus and then he thinks Peter must be here somewhere and actively looks for him before he finds Pettigrew sitting a few desks away. Harry doesn't even think of looking for his mother. Does anyone else think this is odd? Why wouldn't JKR have put Lily in the Great Hall if she is the same age and would be also sitting her DADA OWL? Wouldn't James have glanced toward Lily after striking out the 'L.E.' he had doodled on his paper? If he, as a 15 year old boy (with sex on the brain), was crushing on the girl that much, I imagine any thought of her would take his attention over to where she would be. The question is bothering me because my brain keeps coming up with all sorts of theory's concerning Lily and Snape or Lily and Voldemort etc. etc. And the main reason why some of these theories don't work is because Lily and Snape are supposed to be the same age. But are they? Help. Cheers Mandy. From helen at odegard.com Fri Jan 23 19:22:45 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:22:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The MAP & Ron=DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3e1e6$485f03e0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89474 "tonyaminton" wrote: The people Harry picks out the first time he sees the Map are Dumbledore, Peeves and Ms. Norris, 'people' he needs to watch out for while wandering around the castle (POA, p. 193). --------------- I don't have my copy of books here at work to check this, but if you say Dumbledore has been spotted on the map, then wouldn't this be some fairly hard evidence that Dumbledore is indeed Albus Dumbleore and not Ron Weasley?? Arya (who thinks it's odd that neither Harry nor the twins ever saw a Ron Weasley dot with a nearby Peter Pettigrew dot...) >From Helen: That's easy enough... they are the same person, yet two separate people. Ron Weasley wasn't even born when the Map was made. He was already Albus Dumbledore. He had already taken on that name and identity. When Ron Weasley is actually born, he is still Ron Weasley. Dumbledore was already on the map as Dumbledore, because that was the identity he had taken on. When Ron shows up at Hogwarts, he's not Albus Dumbledore yet, so he shows up as Ron Weasley. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 23 19:31:56 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:31:56 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occlumency and Shield Charm References: <1074815429.22196.79343.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001601c3e1e7$920e1fc0$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 89475 bboy_mn observed: >The 'Legilimens' curse is a sustained curse, Snape has to cast it and >then sustain the intent which in turn sustains the active curse until >Harry blocks the effect or Snape releases it. >This is important because the curse has to be in progress in order for >the Shield to deflect it. If it were an 'event' curse, while the >effect might linger, the curse itself would have come and gone, and >there would have been nothing to deflect. I wonder if there's a case for suggesting that the "Legilimens" _does_ have some sort of sustained effect. On my latest tour through the books, I've noticed that there's a single reference in all three of the earlier ones to the effect that Harry thinks that Snape can read minds. It's not stressed in any way in the books, in fact in CoS, our attention is drawn away from it, but just possibly he's had some ongoing ability there all along which we've been meant to overlook. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From helen at odegard.com Fri Jan 23 19:48:48 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:48:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's watch / Legilimens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c3e1e9$eb757980$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89476 Helen (who thinks either way, Dumbledore knew) wrote: > Think about this logically for a moment... they know there is a traitor. > They are in the middle of a war. Dumbledore, as a Legilimens, *knows* > when someone is lying to him. This is exactly what he tells Harry what > went down with Kreacher. This is life and death; forget about rudeness, > Dumbledore is going to ask people probing questions, even if they aren't > aware that is what he is doing. He's going to notice if Peter is > uncomfortable and shifty. He's going to notice if Peter is lying. For > him to otherwise would be worse than rude, it would be downright > suicidal. LizVega Here: Not sure if this pertains to your discussion, but regardless of whether or not DD knew that Peter was the traitor, he didn't know that Lilly and James made him secret keeper.. DD thought that it was Sirius, as did Lupin. Which makes me ask, and I know it's been brought up before, but, why is it that Sirius was going to be secret keeper anyway, why not DD? Helen again: Well, according to PoA, he *did* offer to be their Secret Keeper and was turned down. Why? No idea, especially considering that Dumbledore was the only one Voldemort was scared of. Anyone else was going to be in danger. Peter was only a good choice (seemingly) because Voldemort wouldn't guess the Potters would pick someone so weak. I am wondering who was the Secret Keeper for the Longbottoms. Surely they had one. At any rate, Dumbledore knew that Peter was the traitor. Even if he didn't know that they switched Secret Keepers. He had to have a pretty good idea that Sirius was innocent (at the very least of betraying the Potters, if not killing Peter). Unless, of course, he thought both had betrayed them, but Dumbledore, even without foreknowledge as Ron, had the means of figuring all of that out. From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 19:27:02 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:27:02 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89477 Mandy: > The question is bothering me because my brain keeps coming > up with all sorts of theory's concerning Lily and Snape or > Lily and Voldemort etc. etc. And the main reason why some > of these theories don't work is because Lily and Snape are > supposed to be the same age. But are they? They're the same age. They were Head Boy and Head Girl together, neh? And even if they weren't, they could only be, at most, about two years apart, still making the Snape and LV relations void. I always thought of a lot of the Snape and LV theories as being uncharacteristically convoluted of Rowling, anyway. Illicit affairs don't strike me as something she'd put in a childrens' novel. Could Lily be related to Snape or LV? It's possible, though I don't personally see Rowling going that way. Just as I don't personally see Snape having ever been in love with Harry's mother. Just me, but it is possible, I suppose. ~ Hitomi :) From cubs9911 at aol.com Fri Jan 23 19:42:52 2004 From: cubs9911 at aol.com (cubs99111) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:42:52 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89478 Pippin: > The same argument applies to the Stone. But Dumbledore > couldn't destroy it until he got Flamel's permission because it > didn't belong to him. The Prophecy Orb belongs to the Ministry. But I seem to remember that Harry and the gang shot spells at the shelves that held other prophecies and they broke at least a hundred of them that did not belong to them. So if they were able to break prophecies that they had nothing to do with, then surely someone could have gone in and broke the prophecy that had to do with Harry and Voldemort. JR From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 23 20:06:22 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:06:22 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <002d01c3e21c$543ecf70$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" wrote: K > > Kneasy could you *please* actually read my messages before replying to them. > My point was not that the term was offensive - since we don't live in JKR's > world there is nobody here who could be offended by it. My point was that > the term is supposed to have an impact when we hear it used by Draco or > whoever because it is a rare and vile insult in that world and if we throw > it around as nothing more than a synonym for muggleborn then it won't have > that impact when we read it because it will not have those connotations for > us. That is why it is especially important for me that we don't use it for > characters we like. If we are using it to describe people we like then it > loses all the insulting connotations for us. Personally I want to be able to > feel the same sense of outrage while reading Draco's insults to Hermione > that Ron does - not because it offends me in any way but because that is how > JKR intends me to react - if the word mudblood is downgraded in my mind to > simply another term for a muggleborn wizard then Ron's actions will seem > more like a gross over-reaction and it will be harder to sympathise with > him. And until or unless the Admin team declare the word a breach of the > list rules then it's not an attempt to censor you, no one is forbidding you > to use the word, we are simply saying why we think it would be wiser not to > use it. If you really want to keep using it then go right ahead. I can't > force you not to and I wouldn't want to try, but I still think the word > should be used sparingly in order to preserve the impression JKR is trying > to convey when she uses it. > > And frankly the only thing about this discussion that is likely to offend me > is the way you seem to have decided what the people you are arguing with > think and mean and are arguing against that instead of what we actually say. > Ah. Right. Got hold of the wrong end of the stick have I? OK, if I mis-understood the tenor of your post, I apologise. *But* (oh, how that word must cause a sigh), I will probably quietly go my own way even having read your exposition. To me it is just a descriptive term in a story and carries no punch or overtones of shock!horror at all. No, I'm not expecting agreement (or discussion, come to that), the word has no meaning to me except as a cue for reaction from another character. I do not react myself, and doubt that I ever will. I suppose you could say that I see myself as an observer looking in and not a participant in the action. And I prefer it that way, it means that feelings don't intrude while figuring out what's going on. It's not the first time it's happened. I was frankly gobsmacked at the reaction to the elimination of Sirius, couldn't understand it. Can't say I identify with any of the characters, maybe in a distant way with Snape, and I can recognise most of the adults as types that I am familiar with. Adolescents? No, they are not my favourite people; in fact (heresy! heresy!) I'd be better suited if all the cast were adult. Unfortunately JKR doesn't agree, so I'm stuck with them. I've just done a quick mental survey; I'd estimate that 90+% of my posts have been about the adults in the books, which says a lot when the tale is putatively about children. The adults are much more interesting, IMO. Harry and Hermione I find slightly irritating. Hermione is two-dimensional compared to Molly or even Umbridge, Harry is an empty suit next to DD, Snape, Lupin or Arthur. You, and many others probably take the opposite view. Fine. It doesn't matter. We each get what we want and there's enough meat in there for everyone. I enjoy picking the bones, but I'm no more emotionally involved than I am with the Sunday roast. Kneasy From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 23 20:18:16 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:18:16 -0000 Subject: The MAP & Ron=DD In-Reply-To: <000201c3e1e6$485f03e0$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: > > > > "tonyaminton" wrote: > The people Harry picks out the first time he sees the Map are > Dumbledore, Peeves and Ms. Norris, 'people' he needs to watch out > for while wandering around the castle (POA, p. 193). > > --------------- > I don't have my copy of books here at work to check this, but if you > say Dumbledore has been spotted on the map, then wouldn't this be > some fairly hard evidence that Dumbledore is indeed Albus Dumbleore > and not Ron Weasley?? > > Arya (who thinks it's odd that neither Harry nor the twins ever saw a > Ron Weasley dot with a nearby Peter Pettigrew dot...) > > > From Helen: > > That's easy enough... they are the same person, yet two separate people. > Ron Weasley wasn't even born when the Map was made. He was already Albus > Dumbledore. He had already taken on that name and identity. When Ron > Weasley is actually born, he is still Ron Weasley. Dumbledore was > already on the map as Dumbledore, because that was the identity he had > taken on. When Ron shows up at Hogwarts, he's not Albus Dumbledore yet, > so he shows up as Ron Weasley. Arya again: But I'm not so sure I can buy this because, despite time-travel, there is still only one person. (I think of it, no, actually, I've physically gotten a string out to conceptualize this-- meaning there is only one "lifeline". (One finite peice of string) But with time travel, it can loop back around and allow two segments of the string to coexist at the same points of time. Obviously, this concept is up for debate, but I think we know 'the Marauder's Map never lies' (supposedly) and that if polyjuice, which physically turns one person into another doesn't fool the map, then it likely has nothing to do with the "contrived" identity of the person, but with the true identity of the person. Wow, that felt like a very....intangible post. From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 20:21:09 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:21:09 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89481 In response to Del's comments I'll say this, and then I'll leave this thread alone, as I seem to continually NOT be able to make my point clearly or accurately, and I don't want to dig myself into an even deeper hole. The post I made before my last one on this thread, to be perfectly honest, I am quite ashamed of. It was rude, opinionated, not at all open-minded (which I always hope to be), and only served to drive home the point of those who don't share my opinion. Because Del, you were right, in that we will simply have to agree to disagree. I do NOT worship Harry, I simply love his character. At the end of the day, he's what I go back to read these books for. You don't have to like him, nor share my opinion; I would hate it if you did, it would make this list rather boring. I have ALWAYS seen Harry as simply human, NOT Superman (for some reason people seem to think I do see him as the cliche Mary Sue - I hate Mary Sues). But I think there are qualities about him that I do strive for in my own character, but that's only because I relate to him, as a HUMAN being. As I said before, human meaning inherently flawed, and born into original sin. I don't want Harry to be perfect, I love him as JKR has written him, and that is as the typical flawed human being, with their own special talents and assortment of weaknesses (which we all have). Though you will never get me to understand how anyone can see Harry as a cruel character (sometimes I feel like I'm reading a different book), I do understand how you can not like him. So I'll leave it there. I'm usually pretty eccentric in my choice of characters I like, I always gravitate towards those who have huge flaws, yet overcome them by the fact that they love others more than themselves. Altruistic, to an extent. Ender Wiggin, as I mentioned before, Holden Caulfield (Catcher in the Rye, Salinger), Tom Joad (The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck), Adam Hall (The Chamber, Grisham), Arthur Clennam (Little Dorrit, Dickens), to name a few in common literature others may know of. And you can't say that Harry doesn't put another's life before his own. In the end, I simply agree with Rowling (as I said before, and will risk redundancy for closure): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of me in Harry." Oh, and those quotes I gave come from the perspective of a thirty- year-old Ender, after the fact of his childhood ;) ~ Hitomi "Maybe we're the fools, for thinking we know things. Maybe humans are the only ones who can deal with the fact that nothing can ever be known at all" (Xenocide, Orson Scott Card 317). "I'll tell you what *I* think. I think you don't grow up until you stop worrying about other people's purposes or lack of them and find the purposes you believe in for yourself" (Ender from Xenocide, Orson Scott Card 413). "People should only be blamed or praised for what they meant to do" (Xenocide, Orson Scott Card 430). From kcawte at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 24 04:38:27 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:38:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology References: Message-ID: <003b01c3e233$ee09e060$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89482 Kneasy > > OK, if I mis-understood the tenor of your post, I apologise. > *But* (oh, how that word must cause a sigh), I will probably quietly > go my own way even having read your exposition. To me it is just > a descriptive term in a story and carries no punch or overtones of > shock!horror at all. No, I'm not expecting agreement (or discussion, > come to that), the word has no meaning to me except as a cue for > reaction from another character. I do not react myself, and doubt > that I ever will. > K Goodness how boring! I wouldn't read a book (of fiction) where I could objectively sit outside of the story and not get emotionally involved in it. I have plenty of non-fiction I can read if that's what I want. For me the whole point of fiction is to escape from the world (which isn't to say that I only read happy bookd or fantasy books) and step into the author's world - whether that be Hogwarts or the gritty world of Kay Scarpetta's coronor's office or medieval York or wherever the world's only female werewolf happens to be at the time (my latest addiction. K Armstrong's Bitten and Stolen, go and read everyone, especially if you like the ideas behind LKH's Anita Blake books but find her writing a little simplistic). Here in the real world mudblood has no punch for me but in JKR's world I find it shocking when someone uses it, hence my care not to use it myself, especially in connection with a character i like thus inadvertantly linking it with positive feelings in my mind. And actually I agree with your comments about the adults (to some extent - I wouldn't agree that hermione is two dimensional, in fact until OoP I would have argued she was the only 3d female in the books). I find them far more interesting. When I'm involved in one of my periodic rants about the fact that Harry is an obnoxious brat from time to time I always try and point out that that doesn't mean I dislike him or think he's evil. I think it's realistic - most teenage boys are obnoxious brats about 90% of the time after all. I can identify with Hermione to a certain extent, since when I was her age that was me (minus the death defying adventures fortunately) but the characters that most interest me are Severus and Remus and Sirius, although a few more moments like we saw in OoP and Minerva's going to rocket to the top of that list. For all the fact that I hate him I have to admit that Albus is another fascinating character - I can't decide whether he;s an idiot or a horrible person but I'd far rather talk about him than Draco for example. I think the majority of my posts have probably been about adult characters (well those about individual characters rather than Slytherins for example) too. Heck, that's one of the reasons I write and read fanfiction - I'm interested in the adult characters and I want to explore them far more than we're likely to be able to in the books. I'm sure that your attitude works for you, but I couldn't imagine wanting to read something where I didn't get deeply involved in the characters. A good book demands an emotional investment as far as I'm concerned, if it can't engage my feelings as well as my brain then I won't bother with it. Actually that's one of the reasons I was so disappointed with Sirius' death. The fact that she killed him off upset me a great deal because I was emotionally invested in the character *but* I was completely dry eyed and cold about the death scene itself. If the lesson she was trying to teach was simply that people die in a war - then for me she failed because the scene was so unemotional. That's the main reason I think that there is something else behind the way she killed him - not that I think he'll be alive again in later books, but I do think we will see him again in some way, in the same way we've seen quite a lot of James and he was dead before the books even began. But really I will cry at almost anything so the fact that I didn't cry when I read the death said to me that she wasn't trying to make an emotional point but rather set something up for a later book. K From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 23 20:49:02 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:49:02 -0000 Subject: THE MAP...... Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89483 Kneasy: > I'm all for conspiracy theories, but somebody has to be a goodie!< Yes, it's Dumbledore! Kneasy: >> So far from the previous generation we have Snape (exDE), Peter (traitor), Sirius (about whom I have grave suspicions), now there's Lupin!ESE.<< There is, as JKR has allowed, a theme of redemption. So I predict the final tally will be: ; Snape, redeemed; Pettigrew, redeemed; Sirius, a Slytherin who's not as Black as he was painted; Lupin, ESE. Kneasy: > > True, a case can be made for Lupin!ESE, starting with why he wasn't affected by the Dementor on the train, but DE? Not so happy with that one. Why would he be protected by a Fedelius charm? If the DEs used them for mutual protection how come Snape can shop a load of 'em to Crouch? What's so special about Lupin that he gets his own personal protection?< He's Voldemort's second in command, Fudge tells us so, though of course he thinks he's talking about Sirius. Lesser DE's aren't so protected, because Voldemort doesn't trust them, and because Fidelius is immensely complex and difficult. > >But I'm puzzled why Lupin should be so interested in the Trio going to Hagrids hut in the first place. The way the passage is written, it seems that Hagrids hut is a blank spot on the map; he doesn't see Pettigrew on the map until they have *left* the hut - or at least that's what he claims. I don't think I believe him. I think he knew exactly where Scabbers was all along and was keeping an eye on him. Almost certainly he's guessed where Sirius was hiding out, too. He was waiting for it all to come together. << How can he be sure it will come together? Scabbers is discovered in Hagrid's hut by accident. But ESE!Lupin makes it simple. ESE!Lupin thinks that Peter is dead, just as he says in the Shack. He's watching the Map that night because he's planning to kill Snape. He pretends that he didn't take his potion, knowing that will bring Snape after him. He takes the potion in secret (Snape's made a whole cauldronful if he needs more ), Soon he'll have the powers and magic resistance of a werewolf body and the cunning of a human brain. He'll leave the Map activated and rush out to the Shack. Snape will follow to see what he's up to, just as he did twenty-odd years before. The murder will look like a tragic accident. Dumbledore will hush it up. At worst, Lupin may have to leave Hogwarts, but he doesn't care: Peter's dead, the traitor Snape is dead, mission accomplished. Of course Buckbeak's execution has been inconveniently scheduled for a night of full moon. Lupin suspects that Harry and Hermione will go down to see Hagrid, and there's all those Ministry folk around (the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures, how apt.) Naturally he's watching the map for them--and then, Pettigrew re-appears and Sirius nabs him. Uh oh. But Sirius, bless him, hauls Peter off to the Shack and the Trio follow. ESE!Lupin's plan will still work, if he hurries. If he spots the cloak on the ground (why wouldn't he?) , he leaves it for Snape to find, the better to lure Snape into coming after him right away and not going back for help. Who was Peter was trying to fool with his second fake death? Not Crookshanks, obviously. And if not Crookshanks, then not Sirius. Peter's fake death follows immediately on the theft of the passwords. He knows Sirius is coming for him. He's got to scarper. But why bother with the fake death? If Crookshanks is in communication with Sirius then he won't be fooled, if not, then how will Sirius hear about it? But if Peter could convince *Voldemort's* agents that he was really dead this time, all he would have to do is wait quietly in Hagrid's hut for rash, risk-taking Sirius to get himself caught once more, and for Crookshanks to go home with Hermione. It almost worked. I can't disprove Devious!Dumbledore, but the trouble I have with Dumbledore conpiracies is that they ignore the second front. Dumbledore's got to keep Harry alive *and* he has to keep the Dark Forces from taking over. If DD lets Voldemort's forces *or his philosophy* entrench themselves as legitimate, then he'll have lost even if Harry eventually kills the Dark Lord--we saw that in OOP. On the second front, Dumbledore's moral authority is the most powerful weapon he has. I don't think he'll throw it away. Pippin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 20:55:36 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:55:36 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > I have a question regarding Lily Evens Potter. > > Is she the same age as James Potter? snipping > One reason this bothers me is in the pensive scene in Snape's Worst > Memory, Chapter 28, OotP - American Ed., there is no mention of Lily > in the exam room. She comes in to our conscious as sitting by the > lake outside. It strikes me as odd that after the jolt of seeing his > father in front of him in the Great Hall, Harry doesn't look for his > mum. Harry's attention is taken from James back 4 rows to Sirius, > then on to Remus and then he thinks Peter must be here somewhere and > actively looks for him before he finds Pettigrew sitting a few desks > away. Harry doesn't even think of looking for his mother. Does > anyone else think this is odd? > > Why wouldn't JKR have put Lily in the Great Hall if she is the same > age and would be also sitting her DADA OWL? Maybe back in the 1970's (or whenever James and Lily were students) boys and girls at Hogwarts did things like exams seperately. As Ron's graceful slide down the girl's staircase in the Gryffindor common room attests to, there were efforts (albeit onesided efforts) to keep the sexes seperate. Maybe back in the day boys and girls took their meals and some classes (and their OWLs) seperatley. Perhaps a WW version of Title IX ended this practice and finally Hogwarts could have co-ed Quidditch teams!! ;) And as to Harry not looking for his mother in the exam room, I can understand that. He was certainly overwhelmed with seeing both his godfather and his father as kids and probably had too much in mind to think of it. After all, for the last five years people had been telling him how much, both physically and personality wise, Harry resembles James. Why shouldn't he focus more on his dad at the moment? Meri (who can't wait to find out what made James stop being an idiot) From joi_foley at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 20:49:24 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:49:24 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys: Dysfunctional or Completely Normal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89485 > Del wrote: > Don't get me wrong : I'm not saying that there's something wrong > with the Weasleys for sure. I'm just saying that they show quite a > few signs of dysfunction. me, joi: Every family is dysfunctional. Period. There's no argument for that. It's been shown that there is no standard for families, and that most completely normal, functioning families are actually dysfunctional when measured to the idea of 'dysfunction'. 'Dysfunctional' doesn't 'Terrible' or 'Totally the worst family ever'. IMO, it's always stood to mean 'Not like others think it should be'. > Sophierom said : > > > Besides, in a WW where one can apparate or travel through a quick > > floo network, I don't think moving to Romania or Egypt is nearly > > as a big a deal as it would be in our world. > > Del answers : > > But Bill and Charlie don't seem too keen to come and visit their > family. We rarely hear of them coming over. joi: We don't know what Bill or Charlie are 'keen' to do. They're not there. And just because they're not there doesn't mean they don't want to be. From what I gather from the books, Bill and Charlie's jobs are really important ones, and they don't have time to go home. Not that they don't want to, but that they are unable to do so. This is why the Weasleys' take the prize money and go to Egypt in PoA. Besides that, both boys do come home. And, when they're home, we don't see them acting like they don't want to be there. The only trouble either seems to have is when Mrs. Weasley comments on Bill's hair, but even then, there aren't any arguments. Just a Mother's love and a Son's respect. > Sophierom said : > > > Location issues aside, I'd argue that Arthur and Molly have done > > a great job raising their sons, and all in all, their family > > dynamic is a pretty healthy one. > > Del answers : > > I'm not sure I agree. The interactions we've seen between Percy, > Fred, George, Ron and Ginny can't always be described as very > healthy IMO. To me, the simple fact that Ron seems so overwhelmed > by his five big brothers at the beginning of PS/SS is a sign that > things aren't going that well between them. I understand that > there's always a bit of competition between siblings, but this > seems like way too much for me. joi: On the subj of Ron at the beginning of PS/SS, is he overwhelmed by them, or by his first year at Hogwarts? For 11 years, he's been watching his older brothers go off to some place he's never seen, and now it's his turn. I would think that a lot of things would be overwhelming then. And I honestly don't see any competition between them. Sure, there's some harsh play, usually from the Twins onto Percy, but that's 1.) the Twins nature, and 2.) Something Percy gets for being 'no fun' (as has been dicussed). If you can quote me parts of the books that show direct competition between all the Weasley kids, I'd be really interested to see it. > Del said: > Ron apparently doesn't receive that kind of moral support from his > parents. And also, the way Molly keeps giving Percy as an example > to the twins always strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do. > Those things are not healthy, not at all, and they do create rifts > between the brothers. joi: You say 'apparently', but I myself have not seen a mention in the books of Ron NOT receiving moral support from his parents. I see the Weasley parents as being quite loving and sweet. Mrs. Weasley plays the role of the typical stay-at-home-mother. She has a lot to do, and in order to do everything properly, she has to run a tight ship. In order to keep the peace in her home, she has to be stern. 'Not giving moral support' and being a stern parent are different. Mrs. Weasley cares wholeheartedly for her family (and even for those she has accepted into her family), as we see in the boggart scene in OotP. As for Percy, I'm going to quote the Lexicon on this one: "Molly is particularly fond of her son Percy, who is serious and follows rules to the letter--in other words, he causes her no grief." That's all there is to her treatment of Percy. Most of the time, when we see that particular dynamic, it's because the Twins are being troublemakers, and Mrs. Weasley would prefer it if they weren't beause it makes her job as mother and head of the home harder. Also, I'd like to point out that, in your opinion, this treatment causes rifts, but I have yet to see any between the Weasley brothers. They have their moments, but they never say they hate, are jealous of, or resent each other. > Del answers : > > But being self-centered and self-serving, as Percy > and even the twins have become, is not one of those tools. joi: The Twins are not self-centered or self-serving. They do things they enjoy that others may not find so funny, but they never threaten anyone's life for their own enjoyment. Their final moment in Hogwarts, I think, was a sign that they were very far from being self- centered. They rocked the system not so they would be forever remembered, but because Umbridge and her goons were getting out of hand. Umbridge was terrible, and there needed to be a revolution. For the sake of the school, the students, the Order, and their good friend Harry, the Twins used their wonderful skills to shake things up. I see that as neither self-centered or self-serving. I see that as noble, courageous, and intelligent. I stand firmly behind the idea that the Weasleys are a wonderful, loving family. If they weren't a good example of family in JKR's eyes, Harry wouldn't be so close with them. I will admit that Percy is a problem, but I believe he will come around very soon, all because of his strong tries to his family. He- like the others, like every kid from a big family, like Harry- is just trying to find out where he belongs. That would then point to the Weasley's being a normal family, having raised a normal son. Thanks, joi. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 21:02:23 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:02:23 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubs99111" wrote: > Pippin: > > The same argument applies to the Stone. But Dumbledore > > couldn't destroy it until he got Flamel's permission because it > > didn't belong to him. The Prophecy Orb belongs to the Ministry. > > > But I seem to remember that Harry and the gang shot spells at the > shelves that held other prophecies and they broke at least a hundred > of them that did not belong to them. So if they were able to break > prophecies that they had nothing to do with, then surely someone > could have gone in and broke the prophecy that had to do with Harry > and Voldemort. > > JR If someone had walked in to the DoM and destroyed the prophecy regarding Harry and LV then that person would have heard it, and while I am still not sure how many people know about the prophecy itself, IMHO, Dumbledore probably wanted that knowledge limited. Keeping the only record in the prophecy hall (other than the one in DD's brain) would at least keep it secret for a while. But I think this thread brings up a good point: why keep records of the prophecies at all? Is this the WW version of a hall of records or is there some other reasoning behind it, other than a really cool plot device and a positively creepy department of mysteries tour? Meri From john.lamb2 at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 23 20:57:17 2004 From: john.lamb2 at ntlworld.com (curlyshirleywhirley) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:57:17 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89487 Sorry but I had to share this with you lot.. my tongue is very firmly in my cheek! I don't believe that Snape is a pure blood because I have just been reading a book to my 5 year old written by what must be relatives of his as the name is so unusual, "Frog friends" by Julia and Charles Snape very muggleish don't you think?...all about a little tree frog aw! Secondly I have been very worried about security at Hogwarts. I have just finished reading GOF to my children and was surprised that Sirius could just break into a wizarding house and use the floo network to pop his head into the fire in the Gryffindor common room . So whats to stop old Voldy or his DE's doing the same and creep into the common room late at night and finish Harry off in his sleep! Old DD better tighten up the secuirty before they realise!! Finally why didn't Voldy/Quirrel recognise Snape as one of his servants and ask him to pop off and get the Philosophers stone for him like a good Death eater or am I picking holes ( sorry if this has already been discussed!) Bye for now Shirley Who has finally plucked up the courage to post something! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 23 21:19:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:19:45 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > susiequsie23 at s: > > had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did he just > > somehow know to use it? > > Sherrie (who only has PoA here at Mom's): > > Wasn't that one of the charms/jinxes/hexes he learned for the TWT? Hitomi: > Yes, and Harry taught the DA the shield charm as well Susan: Whoa. Guess I BOMBED on that one, eh? :-| Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's kinda getting used to admitting mistakes on this list. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 23 21:22:43 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:22:43 -0000 Subject: Vauxhall Road, Again In-Reply-To: <4011856D.7390.1D4CDDD@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > Honestly, I'm not obsessed. It's just my work involves me sitting > around doing nothing waiting for things to happen sometime and > research helps fill up some of the time. > > Basically, I am now more or less totally convinced that a section > of London in the vicinity of Kennington Lane was known as Vauxhall > Road (or rather as The Vauxhall Road) until quite recently, even > though it may have officially had another name, and the Vauxhall > Road name was still in relatively common used. Other evidence > gathered (outlined in previous posts) make me believe it was > probably Kennington Lane or part therof, but the most recent > material I've uncovered doesn't actually confirm which road it is - > just that there was definitely a road being referred to by the name > Vauxhall Road or the Vauxhall Road in that general area. Geoff: Actually, Shaun, you've run into one of those odd English usages. The giveaway is the direct article... "the" Vauxhall Road. If the batsman had belted the ball hard enough to land in what is now Kennington Lane, which would be a feat worthy of Superman, the paper would have said "hit the ball into Vauxhall Road" - no article. There is a usage in English in which people will refer to a road by the direction in which it is going and NOT by its correct name. If, for example, some one in years past had asked me for directions to, say, Vauxhall, when I was standing in Wandsworth High Street, I might say something like "Take the Battersea road out of Wandsworth and when you reach Battersea, keep straight on along Nine Elms Lane." The Battersea road is actually Ram Street followed by York Road. Here, where I now live in West Somerset, I might speak of taking the Minehead road which, in fact, is called Porlock Road.... From cowjock13 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 21:10:57 2004 From: cowjock13 at yahoo.com (Todd Callaway) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Banality of Evil (Was Umbridge's Motives at TBAY (Longish)) Message-ID: <20040123211057.78822.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89490 Sophierom wrote: > If Dolores is firmly in the LV camp, then JKR has > reinforced the idea that the bad guys are really > bad and that the good guys are really good ... and > this just seems to easy, too black and white for > some of the bigger issues she's dealing with in this > series. > But I think HP is more sophisticated than that. > But Umbridge is just so bad, so mean, so nasty, that > it would be really interesting, I think, if she were > working as an independent agent of sorts. It seems too > easy, thematically, for her to be a Voldemort sidekick. > If Umbridge is working for her own sense of ambition at > the ministry, then it becomes the ruthless search for > power for its own sake that is intrinsically bad; evil > is not limited to one particular person or group. {cowjock begins here} Emerging from lurking again....at least briefly. I agree with Sophierom that Augstiana had a great post with lots of great evidence. However.... It would indeed seem to be a cop out to have DJU as a DE, and too much of a caricature. What DJU reminded me of was very simple...and again a reference to Muggle War II...the banality of evil. Most Germans during WWII were not particularly evil, just functionaries or bureaucrats or patriotic/nationalistic, but their adherance to rules, and fighting against the chaos that would have resulted from the fighting their own government (support of MoM?),led them down the road to true evil. DJU simply filling a role, being a "team player" as she sees it, supporting the rightful government against the "lies" of someone who she sees as wanting this *wonderful* post of being the leader of the MoM (DD) and the actions of some snot-nose punk "rock-star" teen. She would have been filled with righteous indignation at the *sheer nerve* of these people and taken action to support the *right* people. Thus the visit from our friends of the doom and gloom patrol to Privet Drive. In this theory, what she did was evil, but her motivations for it were not...simply tied to her job and loyalties to what she sees as the good guys. And again, the mere banality of this action actually assists the rise of the evil one (Lord Thingy) that all in WW would be striving against. Decent person making a bad choice....much as has been argued recently as HP trying to break Belliatrix's kneecaps. Does it make DJU evil? No (at least not necessarily) Does it make HP evil? No. And again, this does fit into the free will motif of JKR, as well as providing a whole lot of gray to the world, so it's not just white (Gryff and OotP) vs. black (Slyth and Thingy's Crewe). Most certainly a less satisfying conclusion than either of the more popular theories, but somehow, it's more real world, and it is also the simplest explanation, Occham's Razor and such (I am a scientist by profession after all, grin). Thanks for listening to my input, we return to your regularly scheduled programming.... Cowjock From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 23 21:32:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:32:30 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Shield Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89491 > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > > > I hesitate to say this to the whole list, because I think a lot >> of people get sick of those of us who think Harry is "gifted" >> with special talent & abilities, but that's how I would explain >> it. I mean, had Harry ever been *shown* a Shield Charm, or did >> he just somehow know to use it? > > Geoff: > "He had soon mastered the Impediment Jinx, a spell to slow down > and obstruct attackers, the Reductor curse which would enable him > to blast solid objects out of the way and the Four-Point spell, a > useful disocvery of Hermione's which would make his wand point due > north therefore enabling him to check whether he was going in the > right direction within the maze. He was still having trouble with > the Shield Charm though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, > invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses; > Hermione managed to shatter it with a well placed Jelly-Legs Jinx." > > (GOF "The Third Task" p.529 UK edition) > > So he had come across it. > > May I add my two pennyworth by saying that I don't like the Harry- > bashers either but neither do I accept that he is invincible and a > second cousin to Superman. He is talented and on occasion displays > exceptional abilitites but he is also a teenager learning the > ropes of life, often the hard way. Siriusly Snapey Susan: Geoff, thank you for pointing out what I should have remembered about the Sheild Charm [she admits sheepishly]. I'd like to go on to add that NEITHER do I believe Harry is "invincible" or "a second cousin to Superman". My goodness, not at all. If he were invincible, we wouldn't all be sweating the end of this series, would we? :-) Your point is well taken that he is a TEENAGER learning the ropes, who makes emotional decisions at times, can't seem to shake grudges even when doing so is vital, etc. Harry is NOT perfect, and I hope that I didn't imply that I think he is. My saying Harry is gifted or talented beyond many--beyond almost all other--wizards & witches does NOT mean that I think it's all a breeze for him. I think when he's in dire straits--when he is focused; when he isn't allowing his own thoughts or emotions cloud his judgment--his abilities tend to rise to the surface, but they don't always in "regular" situations or where less is at stake. I don't think he always KNOWS how to access his abilities; yet I believe they are there. This doesn't mean he COULDN'T be defeated--heavens, he could easily have been in the MoM fight...though I think with time and maturity, he SHOULDN'T be defeated. Hoping I'm making a modicum of sense here, Siriusly Snapey Susan From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 21:41:20 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:41:20 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89492 curlyshirleywhirley wrote: > I don't believe that Snape is a pure blood because I have just been > reading a book to my 5 year old written by what must be relatives of > his as the name is so unusual, "Frog friends" by Julia and Charles > Snape very muggleish don't you think?...all about a little tree frog Hitomi: Ok, I don't know about all that :) But I do actually think Snape is more than likely a pure-blood, he did refer to Lily as a "mudblood," neh? And he was in Slytherin, and they seem to be mostly pure- blood. Though there is still the possiblity Snape was just being hypocritical. curlyshirleywhirley wrote: > Secondly I have been very worried about security at Hogwarts. I have > just finished reading GOF to my children and was surprised that > Sirius could just break into a wizarding house and use the floo > network to pop his head into the fire in the Gryffindor common > room . So whats to stop old Voldy or his DE's doing the same and > creep into the common room late at night and finish Harry off in his > sleep! Old DD better tighten up the secuirty before they realise!! Hitomi: This has always slightly confused me, at least until Book 5, because Umbridge knew about Sirius in the fire, and DD probably knew in Book 4. So maybe DD does know, but considering it was Sirius, didn't worry about it. And Hermione said in one book (can't remember which, one of the times she's talking about "Hogwarts... A History") that Hogwarts has loads of protective spells and such around it, such as the non-Apparating/Disapparating rule. And I think it was said in Book 1 that Hogwarts was the safest place to be when LV was at large ten years ago, and that it's the safest place to be now (ex. Hagrid saying Gringott's was the best place to keep something, except Hogwarts). So, Hogwarts is probably a lot more secure than we think, or have necessarily been led to believe. curlyshirleywhirley wrote: > Finally why didn't Voldy/Quirrel recognise Snape as one of his > servants and ask him to pop off and get the Philosophers stone for > him like a good Death eater or am I picking holes ( sorry if this > has already been discussed!) Hitomi: No idea if it has been discussed, though more than likely it has. I always viewed Snape as the DE LV refers to in the graveyard at the end of Book 4, the one lost forever and who needs to be killed. He probably thought Snape had gone over to DD, or he wasn't sure, and decided to remain in secrecy in case Snape was now loyal to DD. And Snape nor any other DE had come to look for or help LV (except for those such as Bellatrix in Azkaboan), since LV had been in hiding, and he probably wasn't sure who was loyal to him anymore. An example of which being at the end of Book 4, when he calls his Death Eaters, he waits to see which ones come, not knowing who will show their face and who won't. And we know at least one DE fled: Karkaroff. And, as we also know, Snape knew about Quirrell and LV, and continually threatened Quirrell, and once defied him by saving Harry's life. LV probably believed Snape had changed sides, which is why I don't understand how LV can't at least suspect Snape to be a traitor. Snape walks a very line, and since Rowling has told us to watch out for him in interviews, I'm not entirely sure whether or not he can be trusted, even though DD and Hermione both do. Guess we'll have to wait and see. ~ Hitomi, who still doesn't like Snape, trustworthy or not From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 21:14:43 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:14:43 -0000 Subject: Is HP related to Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89493 > IL writes: > > I've got this theory that is bugging me at the moment. Is it > > possible that Harry is related to Voldemort? There are some parts > of > > books that suggest he may be. > Danielle again: > I used to wonder this myself. However, there is an interview with > JKR, and I'm sorry that I don't have a link to the transcript. > Perhaps a more organized listee can provide that. In this interview, > JKR says that having Voldy and Harry related would be "too Star Wars." > So, it's highly doubtful they are. And, when you think about it, > she's probably right. Hitomi: The interview you mentioned is a Scholastic interview, and a link for it is: http://www.twwn.net/jkr14.htm The direct quote is: Q: "Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother?" A: "I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it?" And for the record I agree with Danielle on this. I HIGHLY doubt Harry is related to LV. > IL continues: > > 3. LV was reluctant to kill Lily - he only killed her because she > > would not get out of the way. When LV is speaking through Quirrell > > he says that Harry's mother need not have died. Why wouldn't he > want > > to kill her if she was working against him - he is not exactly a > > humanitarian! (on the other hand he thought nothing of killing his > > father and grandparents so even if Lily was a relative it should > > not have influenced him). > > Danielle again: > This topic has also been discussed, but to my knowledge there has > been no agreement yet on why Voldy was willing to spare Lily's life > if she had gotten out of his way. And some of the theories are pretty > gross! Hitomi: Ok, Danielle talked about how LV only kills those he views as obstacles as a theory. My personal theory is that he just wanted Lily out of the way, and said that in order to get her to move more quickly, but he probably would have killed her anyway. She had "thrice defied" him, after all. He probably just wanted to kill Harry first, or as soon as possible, viewing him the greater threat due to the prophecy. I seriously doubt he would have spared Lily regardless, that or he viewed killing her as a waste of his time; LV can be very apathetic when he isn't just plain enjoying his cruelty. > Danielle: > I admit, he doesn't need much of an excuse to consider someone "in > the way." But that's the pattern I see. He doesn't expend his energy > in that area unless he feels he has to. Hitomi: Exactly what I meant. > IL: > > 4. The comment made by the Sorting Hat that Harry had Slytherin's > > power in him and would do well in that house. As LV is the "heir of > > Slytherin" it may suggest a commonality of blood (although what DD > > says about LV transferring his power to Harry when he failed to > kill > > him may also provide an explanation. > Danielle replies: > I think the Slytherin connection has to do with the backfired AK > curse, which allowed Voldy to inadvertently transfer some of his > powers to Harry. So, in that way, they are in fact related, if not by > birth. > > And think about how Voldy got his body back. Harry's blood was one of > the main ingredients in that potion, and Voldy himself says that > Harry's blood affords him some of the same protection that Harry had > due to his mother's sacrifice. > > So, in a sense, Voldy and Harry are now "blood brothers," definitely > related physically, though not in the "regular" way. I'm sure that > blood connection will play a major role in upcoming events. > > And, finally, the mind connection that Voldy and Harry share. > Certainly a more intimate connection than most true blood relatives > ever share. > > So, are they related? No, not in the traditional uncle or father or > grandfather sense that I originally considered way back when. But > they are more closely related than many true family members, based on > the reasons I gave above. Hitomi: I don't have all that much to add, Danielle has covered the majority of anything I would have said. I just think that all the relations we continually look for (the trio being siblings, relation to LV, DD being Harry or Ron, Remus actually being James) is a result of grasping for straws. A lot of these theories ring slightly cliche with me, but I would have said that about the prophecy theory before Book 5. Rowling may well have some characters be related, but for the most part she has created this huge world filled with a wide assortment of people, and I think she'll leave them mostly seperate. Just my two cents, though the fact that Sirius was cousin to Narcissa, Bellatrix, and what, second cousin I think, to Tonks, not to mention a distant relation to the Weasley family by marriage, rather surprised me. But that is only in the pure-blooded families, what with them pratically in-breeding. Maybe that's what's wrong with Draco. But anyway, the Potters, as far as we know, were pure- blooded until James married Lily, so perhaps there's a relation there. But I do honestly believe LV to be the last of his line. Though, if I turn out to be wrong, I again step back in all humble- tude. Lastly, I think it going against Rowling's primary theory of choice being more important than blood. So really, even if Harry were related to LV, it wouldn't matter. He'd still be Harry, the person we've watched grow and make his own decisions concerning his life. And that would be rather depressing, LV being a relation of Harry's, considering Harry has to defeat him in the end, and considering everything LV has put him through. 'Kay I'm done now :) ~ Hitomi From rredordead at aol.com Fri Jan 23 21:51:58 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:51:58 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89494 I'm relplying to 2 different posts here, thought I'd keep it simple and just us one post for both responces. > I originally wrote: > And the main reason why some of these theories don't work is > because Lily and Snape are supposed to be the same age. But are > they? > Hitomi wrote: > They're the same age. They were Head Boy and Head Girl together, > neh? Mandy (me) again: But where does it say that in the canon and by whom? Hagrid say's " Head boy an' girl at Hogwarts in their day!" page 55, Chapter 4 - The Keeper of the Keys. SS, American Ed. He doesn't say at the same time. > Meri wrote: > Maybe back in the 1970's (or whenever James and Lily were students) > boys and girls at Hogwarts did things like exams separately. Mandy again: There is definitely girl in the exam room with James as Harry sees her looking longingly at Sirius trying desperately to get him to acknowledge her. So Girls and boys sit their exams together. Meri wrote: >And as to Harry not looking for his mother in the exam room, I can >understand that. He >was certainly overwhelmed with seeing both his godfather and his >father as kids and probably had too much in mind to think of it. >After all, for the last five years people had been telling him how >much, both physically and personality wise, Harry resembles James. >Why shouldn't he focus more on his dad at the moment? Mandy (me)again: I agree to a point. It is quite likely that a 15-year-old boy might not think of his mother. But he's an orphan who has never met his parents and who is reminded of their terrible sacrifice almost every month. I believe if Lily was in the room that Harry would have stopped dead in his tracks as soon as he saw her long red hair, just like his stomach did a flip on seeing his dad. That's why I'm on a mission to find canon proof that Lily and James were the same age, because the more I think about it, the more I don't believe they were. Cheers Mandy From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 23 21:52:35 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:52:35 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vauxhall Road, Again In-Reply-To: References: <4011856D.7390.1D4CDDD@localhost> Message-ID: <40123253.5090.2175B7@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 89495 On 23 Jan 2004 at 21:22, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Actually, Shaun, you've run into one of those odd English usages. The > giveaway is the direct article... "the" Vauxhall Road. If the batsman > had belted the ball hard enough to land in what is now Kennington > Lane, which would be a feat worthy of Superman, the paper would have > said "hit the ball into Vauxhall Road" - no article. Actually, I am aware of that useage. It's used here as well. My question is, however, that if the term is in common enough use to appear multiple times in The Times, for whatever reason, is it reasonable or not to suppose that a newsagent might print that term on their own products? I know that does happen here, I might add - I just don't know if its done in the UK. Perhaps Riddle's Diary was sold by "Smith and Jones, The Vauxhall Road Newsagents" for example? Is something like that a reasonable possibility, based on your knowledge. [Incidentally, looking at scaled maps, and aerial photographs, I calculate the distance from the centre of the Oval to a point in Kennington lane, at around 320 metres. That is an impressive shot, certainly - but I have seen a shot of that magnitude in a game at the MCG once (the ball landed in Charles Street, Jolimont). Most phenomenal shot I've ever seen - it's not quite superman, but it was incredibly impressive.] The fact is, though, I don't what road was being referred to in those articles - I'm just wondering though, as the term does seem to be used, would anyone be likely to use such a term in describing their business? Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 22:16:28 2004 From: fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com (Martha) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:16:28 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89496 Mandy: Harry doesn't even think of looking for his mother. Does > anyone else think this is odd? Meri: > Maybe back in the 1970's (or whenever James and Lily were students) > boys and girls at Hogwarts did things like exams seperately. As > Ron's graceful slide down the girl's staircase in the Gryffindor > common room attests to, there were efforts (albeit onesided efforts) > to keep the sexes seperate. Martha: Well, it's a possibility that certain things were done separately, but not exams. From OoP, p565 UK edition, description of Sirius during OWL exam: "He was very good-looking... and a girl sitting behind him was eyeing him hopefully" ... So there were girls in the exam room. As to why Harry didn't look for Lily in the exam room - I have no idea. The only thing I can suggest is that rather than not look for her, he just didn't notice her. After all, Harry looks just like James, so there's a chance he'd be more likely to spot him. Lily, on the other hand, only becomes obvious to Harry when he sees her eyes, which are just like his. I agree - it's not the best explanation. After all, Harry has photos of both his parents, and the timeline suggests less than ten years elapsed between the pensieve scene and baby Harry. It's unlikely he didn't see her because he didn't know what she looked like. Of course, if one was to write such a scene with the knowledge of such an age gap, one might not think to mention it, and yes fail to explain such discrepancies. Just a thought. ~ Martha From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 22:05:14 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:05:14 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89497 Mandy: > That's why I'm on a mission to find canon proof that Lily and James > were the same age, because the more I think about it, the more I > don't believe they were. Even if they're not the same age, they can't be far apart: "How come she married him?" Harry aked miserably. "She hated him!" "Nah, she didn't," said Sirius. "She started going out with him in seventh year," said Lupin (Book 5, Rowling 671). Which leads me to believe they were, more than likely, the same age. But then, they might not have been. But they can't be more than two years apart, because I highly doubt a fifteen-year-old James would like a twelve-year-old Lily, and Lily was still in school, so she couldn't have been older than seventeen/eighteen (if she and James were not the same age). Hope that helps! :) ~ Hitomi From navarro198 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 23:02:16 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:02:16 -0000 Subject: Cho (Was: Hermione's Sigh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89498 Hitomi: I always looked at Hermione's approval of Cho in general as a desire for Harry to be happy. Bookworm: Probably. I don't think Hermione really knows Cho very well. Hitomi: And I agree, too, Michael is definitely a rebound, but then... so was Harry. Bookworm: Good point, I hadn't wasn't thinking about how they got together at the beginning of the book. Hitomi: That blush on the train, was in my opinion, one of embarrassment. I don't think Cho is really interested in Harry anymore, I don't know if she could get past Cedric's death by being with him (one of the main reasons she wanted to date Harry was so they could talk about Cedric). Bookworm: I agree that she blushed from embarrassment, but she didn't blush until she saw Harry. The others would have been just as hard on her. She is still aware of Harry in a romantic way ? even if as an "ex". Hitomi: Like I said, I don't think we've seen the last of Cho, I just think we've seen the last of Cho dating Harry. ... Hermione was worried about Harry's feelings of rejection, especially after Sirius, ... Bookworm: Which is why I thought her "tentative" comment was telling. (H/Hr shippers ? I think her attitude would have been more smug if she was interested in Harry that way herself.) Hitomi: ...but after Sirius and learning of the prophecy, I think the last thing on Harry's mind will be dating. I don't think the best pick up line would be "Oh, by the way, I could die in a couple of years, due to the fact that I'm the only one who can knock of Lord - Thingy, but how about you and me go out, and maybe in future, possibly fall in love?" Uh, no. Harry needs friends right now, and as much as I don't want her anywhere near him romantically, I would be delighted if Cho became Harry's friend. He needs all the friendship and support he can get in the next two years. Bookworm: I think we both have the same ideas about Cho. Harry is definitely NOT interested in dating now. (Could you really see Harry using that line?! He would probably choke on the words :-) If any romantic relationship develops, it will grow out of a solid friendship ? whether with Hermione, Ginny, Luna or Cho - pick your own SHIP ;-). Cho is a very insecure girl. I don't remember if Cho was seeing anyone prior to Gof, but she strikes me as the kind of girl who needs someone to lean on. If you take her response to Harry's invitation to the Yule Ball at face value, she was interested in Harry then. But her relationship with Cedric obviously developed so that they continued to see each other for the rest of the school year. Her interest in Harry in OoP was probably a mix of trying to find closure for Cedric's death, and renewed attraction to Harry. Her date with Harry was typical(ly awkward) until Harry mentioned Hermione's name, when she suddenly became jealous. Again, when Harry saw her after the raid on the DA, she was apologetic until Harry mentioned Hermione's jinx. She went from "pleading" to "fierce" within seconds (US, p637). Anyone who becomes Harry's girlfriend will have to accept Hermione as a part of his life; Cho is too insecure to do this. When I said that we shouldn't write Cho off so quickly, I wasn't thinking about their romance continuing, but about how JKR wove her thread through 3 books and it is unlikely she would drop it here. And Hermione's attitude was more neutral than negative toward her, even on the train, which bodes well for Cho. Ravenclaw Bookworm From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 23 23:18:20 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:18:20 -0000 Subject: Vauxhall Road, Again In-Reply-To: <40123253.5090.2175B7@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 23 Jan 2004 at 21:22, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > Actually, Shaun, you've run into one of those odd English usages. The > > giveaway is the direct article... "the" Vauxhall Road. If the batsman > > had belted the ball hard enough to land in what is now Kennington > > Lane, which would be a feat worthy of Superman, the paper would have > > said "hit the ball into Vauxhall Road" - no article. > > Actually, I am aware of that useage. It's used here as well. My > question is, however, that if the term is in common enough use to > appear multiple times in The Times, for whatever reason, is it > reasonable or not to suppose that a newsagent might print that term > on their own products? I know that does happen here, I might add - > I just don't know if its done in the UK. > > Perhaps Riddle's Diary was sold by "Smith and Jones, The Vauxhall > Road Newsagents" for example? Is something like that a reasonable > possibility, based on your knowledge. Geoff: I think not. First, when Harry reads the back of the diary, it says he "saw the printed name of a newsagents in Vauxhall Road" - (COS "The Very Secret Diary" p.173 UK edition) - not "the" Vauxhall Road. Referring back to the Times notes, it is probably not unusual for the paper to refer to "the Vauxhall Road" in the cricket notes because folk who knew the cricket ground would know that they were indicating Kenington Oval or possibly Harleyford Road, the roads along which spectators would walk to get to Vauxhall Cross. Reiterating what I said earlier, using "the" with the road name is very much an indicator of direction if this is not the true name of the road. If a business described themselves as "the Brixton Road car showroom" for eexample, then you would expect them to be in Brixton Road. If they were actaully in Acre Lane or Clapham Park Road, this would be very misleading to acustomer trying to find the premises. I therefore hold to my theory that the newsagents was in Vauxhall Road, which nowadays is the end of Kennington Lane east of the crossing with Kennington Road. Digressing for a moment to Carolyn's comments in 89406, I hope to try to obtain a little bit more information on the question of the orphanage over the weekend. One of our church memebrs was on the staff at Spurgeon's College for many years and has already helped me with one or two points, so I shall do some more arm-twisting! Watch out, Tom, we're on your tail again. :-) From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 23:23:35 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:23:35 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89500 <<> The Sergeant Majorette says Yep. Especially "tree-huggers" (eco-maniacal, sanctimonious buggers); joggers (they're just in the way; pedestrians and motorists both hate them). Then there are those rain-forest-depleting loggers, filthy importunate beggars... Wait a minute, were you joking? Oh... --JDR From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 23:33:11 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:33:11 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <004b01c3e1a4$13bac800$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89501 <<>> The Sergeant Majorette says Ever hear a Marine drill sergeant refer to a gaggle of recruits as "Ladies"? They still do that. When I first became aware of the dreaded "n" word, I heard it defended as a function of a southern accent, no insult intended. I would not be at all surprised if JKR meant to include a reference to the patronizing divisiveness of the term "muggle" when she invented it. --JDR From pjcousins at btinternet.com Fri Jan 23 23:41:19 2004 From: pjcousins at btinternet.com (confusinglyso) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:41:19 -0000 Subject: Albus Dumbledore Must Die & "Put yourself in my shoes" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89502 confusinglyso Phil: I am commenting on / joining two posts here. The phrase recently used by Iris in post #89470 'Put yourself in my shoes' is literally what is experienced by Harry when he enters the pensieve, especially the OoP occasion containing Snape's thoughts. The 'Albus Dumbledore Must Die' recurring theory plus the strong belief AD seems to have in prophecies may lead to:- Sybil Trelawney making a third prophecy, "Beware Halloween, for the centaurs revolt. ..For too long.... family member...(c)harmed goat. ..Death comes when you aid your brother. ..Time is up...the Stone is...no more... bother." Having warning of AD's imminent death, 'plans' can be made. AD informs Harry and puts all useful memories into Pensieve for safety. He tells Harry to absorb/view them for his rapid development, and, to return to the pensieve regularly after AD dies. It is the problem with prophecies, that the 'knowledge' derived from the prophecy leads one into acting in a manner that tends to bring it to fruition. Of course, leaving the useful, (to Harry), memories in the pensieve could be the cause of AD dying, he is lacking a crucial memory at the critical moment. Does anyone else feel that the pensieve will be a great cramming tool for accelerating Harry's learning ? Phil From kcawte at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 24 07:48:38 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:48:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology References: Message-ID: <000d01c3e24e$7abb0830$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89503 > << term woman wasn't an insult...>>> > > The Sergeant Majorette says > > Ever hear a Marine drill sergeant refer to a gaggle of recruits > as "Ladies"? They still do that. > K Let me rephrase that, the term woman isn't an insult when referring to women. In your example he would presumably be referring to men (although you do get women in the army and personally I'd have a hard time taking that as an insult if it was directed at me - because it's not, it's a statement of fact) K From dh.shrijnana at verizon.net Fri Jan 23 22:33:35 2004 From: dh.shrijnana at verizon.net (shrijnana) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:33:35 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89504 I've had a few questions about Ginny Weasley... maybe they've been discussed here before; if so maybe someone less new to the group can point me to the relevant posts. I think there's even more to Ginny than meets the eye, even more that the powerful witch an quiddich player she's growing into being. First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train to Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to her experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm not so sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she was possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember what I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would the dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? But what really makes me wonder about her is her reaction to the stone archway in the deparment of mysteries. Ron and Hermione have no noticable reaction to it. Harry and Luna both hear voices behind the veil, and Neville and Ginny are entranced by it. "On the other side, Ginny and Neville were staring, apparantly entranced, at the veils too. Without speaking, Hermione took hold of Ginny's arm, Ron Neville's, and they marched them firmly back to the lowest stone bench..." (Pg. 775, US edition) At the end of OotP Luna refers to the voices behind the veil as those of loved ones who have died. Harry, Neville, and Luna all have seen people die - they can all see the thestrals - and all have loved ones who have died. As far as we know, Ron and Hermione haven't. But what about Ginny? Why is she entranced by the veil? And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. I have no idea about a H/G relationship... but I'm betting Ginny plays a big role in the next two books whether a relationship happens or not. - Shrijnana From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 23:58:21 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:58:21 -0000 Subject: Powers of the Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89505 In OOP the room with the veil is referred to by Dumbledore as the 'death chamber'. Does this mean that the wizarding world has an equivalent to the gas chamber/electric chair? I was under the impression that all wizards, even the really bad ones, were sent to Azkaban. Sirius was convicted (without a trial by Barty Crouch)of killing 13? people- surely if there is such a thing as the 'death penalty' for wizards- Sirius alleged actions would have merited that sentence, but no, he went to prison. All of the death eaters who were caught were sent to Azkaban, not one word about being executed. If these people, surely the worst of the worst, weren't even sentenced to death, who would be? Of course, the veil in the 'death chamber' may not be there to serve that purpose. Perhaps it is there as a portal to death? Death would be one of the mysteries the the MM would study in the dept. of mysteries, surely? But, if it is a portal to death, and not a death device, then why couldn't Sirius be retrieved? From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 00:16:56 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:16:56 -0000 Subject: How many turns? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89506 I'm a little amused at the ideas of Ron and Dumbledore being the same person. As far as I have been able to read, the proof for this theory is: The long crooked nose The red hair And the fact that Dumbledore always knows what's going on Is that it? I'm sorry, and I truly don't intend to offend any of the posters who believe this theory, but wouldn't it be a little contrived if that were the key to everything? Dumbledore sent himself back in time to act as a friend to Harry, and for what, exactly? How would this plot device lend in furthering Harry's destiny to 'vanquish' the dark lord? I'm sorry, but I think we're all grasping at straws. Two similar physical features isn't enough to convince me. As far as Dumbledore knowing everything, he doesn't. He didn't know that Sirius would die because he hadn't given Harry the pertinent information. He didn't know that the Marauders were animagi. He didn't know that Peter was the Potter's secret keeper. Dumbledore is, according to Jo about 150 years old. I'd like to think that if I were able to live to that age, I'd be pretty damned smart too. Lots of lessons learned. Definitely not all knowing, but wise. As far as the Time Turner.....I know, we all want it to make another appearance. One thing I keep thinking about is, Hermione was told by DD "3 turns should do it", (IOW, 3 turns = 3 hours)If Dumbledore is Ron, how many times did he have to turn the time turner to take him back? From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 24 00:20:09 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:20:09 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus + reaction to a Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89507 Del laughs : > See ? You're doing it again :-) First you > say Harry is a human being, and then you go > on saying he is extraordinary. You're not > necessarily technically wrong, but you make > it sound like Harry is above all the rest, > like he's the ONLY ONE who will prove how > extraordinary he is. In my idea, quite a few > other people, both young and older, will come > to prove how extraordinary they can be, just > as extraordinary as Harry ! It's a war, it's > bound to bring to the light the best and > the worst of everyone. And now Sue...who was not going to say anymore. You can be human, young and extrordinary all at the same time. I think our basic difference is that I see Harry as special because JKR sees him as special. The books are about him. If he were not special why write about him? Why not just call it The Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone and leave him out of it completely? All of the ways Harry is special have been mentioned here repeatedly by those who defend our position. I don't think that after 7 books this argument will go away simply because, from my perspective at least, If you don't see him as extrordiary now you never will. We all have our own vision of the characters and our favorites. This is a work of fiction, a beautiful work of fiction where the characters come alive for us in different ways. I am sure if I were reading this book as a much younger person, my opinions would be different. But from my point of view, having children of my own, teaching for many years and knowing many different kinds of people, you do not have to be Superman to be extrordinary. For some people the simple act of continuing to live is an extrordinary feet. As I have said before, I see Harry as special, gifted, moral and powerful. I also see him as human, young, and sad. All of these things, all at once. That does not mean that Harry is the ONLY one who can be all of these things (or any combination there of). I do not see being extrordinary, gifted etc. as attributes that only one person can have at a time. There are many people who have these gifts in the RW. I have nothing to prove, I only wanted to defend someone I care about, who cannot defend himself in this forum. JKR, I am sure, will show us all who Harry truly is in the end. Whether you and I have the same perspective on who he is remains to be seen. Sue (Who is finished now, no matter what.) From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 01:00:44 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:00:44 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89508 shrijnana wrote: > I've had a few questions about Ginny Weasley... maybe they've been > discussed here before; if so maybe someone less new to the group can > point me to the relevant posts. I think there's even more to Ginny > than meets the eye, even more that the powerful witch an quiddich > player she's growing into being. Hitomi: I have no idea if this has been discussed before, so if it has I'm the wrong person to ask. But you did mention some things I've wondered about myself, so I thank you for bringing them up. shrijnana wrote: > First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train to > Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to her > experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm not so > sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she was > possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember what > I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would the > dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? Hitomi: You know, I thought the exact same thing, originally. But she could also be remembering other things about that year, such as waking up with chicken blood on her robes and not knowing how it got there, waking up and seeing a dying Harry in the Chamber before Fawkes heals him, etc. It's just a theory, if her memories a Dementor conjures do end up being from her first year. But I definitely think she could be remembering something else we might not know of, and the archway was what led me to that conclusion as well. shrijnana wrote: > But what really makes me wonder about her is her reaction to the stone > archway in the deparment of mysteries. Ron and Hermione have no > noticable reaction to it. Harry and Luna both hear voices behind the > veil, and Neville and Ginny are entranced by it. > > "On the other side, Ginny and Neville were staring, apparantly > entranced, at the veils too. Without speaking, Hermione took hold of > Ginny's arm, Ron Neville's, and they marched them firmly back to the > lowest stone bench..." (Pg. 775, US edition) Hitomi: I remember thinking while reading right before this passage, "Oh Harry and Luna hear voices that Hermione can't (Hermione is trying to get Harry away from the arch at the time), that must mean it's similar to the thestrals." And then you hit this passage, and Neville makes sense, but... Ginny? I thought about it, too. There's only so much speculation we can do, Ginny was never an overly important figure until the latest book (discluding her involvement in Book 2, but she can't remember that), and there is quite a lot we still don't know about her. Mostly, I guess, we'll have to wait and see, but there is something rather... intriguing about Ginny. And she never backs down when Harry yells at her ;) shrijnana wrote: > At the end of OotP Luna refers to the voices behind the veil as those > of loved ones who have died. Harry, Neville, and Luna all have seen > people die - they can all see the thestrals - and all have loved ones > who have died. As far as we know, Ron and Hermione haven't. But what > about Ginny? Why is she entranced by the veil? Hitomi: My only thing with your point here: we don't know if loved ones are heard from behind the veil, we just know dead people, or spirits, are more than likely heard behind the veil. We could just be making something out of nothing, in that maybe Hermione and Ron didn't look at it the same way the others did, or weren't listening, or some trivial detail. Do I think we are? Not really, but like I said, there's only so much speculation one can do. Maybe Ginny heard voices because she killed chickens, I don't know (though that would be stupid in my opinion, and wouldn't really make sense, considering they're animals and don't talk). I don't think she saw Tom Riddle "die," so that can't be it. Maybe those tombs in Egypt had an affect. I really don't have a clue, unless there is something we're missing, which leads me right back to square one with our speculation. Guess we'll have to wait for Book 6. ::sigh:: shrijnana wrote: > And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed > Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. Hitomi: Her name could just be Ginny. Just like Bill could be Bill, and not William, or Percy instead of Percival, or Fred instead of Frederick. Ron's name is the only one we know is short for something - Ronald. But no, there is no canon evidence her name is anything but Ginny. shrijnana wrote: > I have no idea about a H/G relationship... but I'm betting Ginny plays > a big role in the next two books whether a relationship happens or > not. Hitomi: I'm with you, I don't know about a relationship (though I always liked the idea of Ginny and Harry; he'd be Ron's brother-in-law, and the Weasleys would be thrilled), but I definitely think she'll be a major one of Harry's friends, which we can say about Neville and Luna now, too, in a way. I also think we'll see more of her because of Quidditch, what with the only old member on the team being Harry, so he'll probably end up Quidditch Captain. Fred and George are gone, and Angelina, Alicia, and Katie just graduated. So, if Ginny is a Chaser, maybe Harry will get to know her better (good point for H/G shippers, anyway). That probably wasn't much help, shrijnana, sorry, but I'm kind of in the same boat as you on this issue. I would love to hear other people's thoughts as well! Hope everyone has a good weekend! ~ Hitomi From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 01:05:52 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:05:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch / Legilimens In-Reply-To: <000401c3e1e9$eb757980$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89509 >Helen again: > Well, according to PoA, he *did* offer to be > their Secret Keeper who was the Secret Keeper > for the Longbottoms. Surely they had one. Perhaps, but as they were attacked later, maybe they had come out of hiding. > He had to have a pretty good idea that Sirius > was innocent (at the very least of betraying > the Potters, if not killing Peter). Unless, of > course, he thought both had betrayed them, but > Dumbledore, even without foreknowledge as Ron, > had the means of figuring all of that out. I think Dumbledore "knew," too. And he did let Hagrid go to Azkaban knowing he was innocent. There was nothing he could do to stop it, so...... Could the situation have been similar with Sirius? I wonder if Sirius might have been under an Imperius when he suggested Peter for secret keeper. Whizbang121 From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 01:20:10 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:20:10 -0000 Subject: Cho (Was: Hermione's Sigh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89510 > Bookworm: > I think we both have the same ideas about Cho. Harry is definitely > NOT interested in dating now. (Could you really see Harry using > that line?! He would probably choke on the words :-) If any > romantic relationship develops, it will grow out of a solid > friendship ? whether with Hermione, Ginny, Luna or Cho - pick your > own SHIP ;-). Hitomi: ::nods:: Yup, I was right there with you on everything you said. (And I was being sarcastic with that pick-up line in my last post, just using it to explain the situation, but I thought it was funny imagining Harry actually using it :-) ) And I agree, too, that if Harry becomes involved with someone romantically, it will be developed out of a friendship. Which is an interesting dicotomy to his relationship with Cho, because they didn't know each other at all, and with the fact that they were attracted to each other, probably never could have formed a friendship until now. And I personally believe you need to be friends with a person to have a real meaningful relationship with them. Just my two pence. Bookworm: > Cho is a very insecure girl. I don't remember if Cho was seeing > anyone prior to Gof, but she strikes me as the kind of girl who > needs someone to lean on. If you take her response to Harry's > invitation to the Yule Ball at face value, she was interested in > Harry then. But her relationship with Cedric obviously developed so > that they continued to see each other for the rest of the school > year. Her interest in Harry in OoP was probably a mix of trying to > find closure for Cedric's death, and renewed attraction to Harry. > Her date with Harry was typical(ly awkward) until Harry mentioned > Hermione's name, when she suddenly became jealous. Again, when > Harry saw her after the raid on the DA, she was apologetic until > Harry mentioned Hermione's jinx. She went from "pleading" > to "fierce" within seconds (US, p637). Anyone who becomes Harry's > girlfriend will have to accept Hermione as a part of his life; Cho > is too insecure to do this. Hitomi: I never thought much on Cho's insecurity before, though it is blatantly obvious. She never bothered to really understand Harry's relationship with Hermione, otherwise you'd think she would have realized that Hermione spends more time alone with Ron than she does Harry, and Harry has never shown real romantic interest in Hermione. But I guess after that Rita Skeeter article... And again, Harry has so much on his mind, he wouldn't have been able to concentrate on Cho like I think Cedric probably did, which would have bothered her. All in all I never thought this relationship was going to work, anyway. Bookworm: > When I said that we shouldn't write Cho off so quickly, I wasn't > thinking about their romance continuing, but about how JKR wove her > thread through 3 books and it is unlikely she would drop it here. > And Hermione's attitude was more neutral than negative toward her, > even on the train, which bodes well for Cho. Hitomi: Yes, me too, I'd like to see Cho more developed, as in, we get to know her better. And it is her last year in the next book, so maybe she could help outside of Hogwarts in Book 7, too. Hopefully they'll become friends, if perhaps, Harry doesn't beat her in Quidditch too much ;) I don't really mean that, but I have wondered if she'll be Seeker for Ravenclaw next year, since she lost them the Tournament in a way, and hadn't been flying well. Anyway, just speculation. I do like Cho, I just don't think she's right for Harry. ~ Hitomi From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 01:21:35 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:21:35 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89511 Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's right hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort didn't want to kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's somehow manipulated time to come back and save his family. From groups at e-dennis.net Sat Jan 24 02:18:12 2004 From: groups at e-dennis.net (Dennis) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:18:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency & Shield Charm/Snape's Ability - Simple Explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89512 bboy_mn: We must, I believe, make a distinction between the Ability of Legilimency and the Spell of Legilimency, which, reasonable so, are related but not necessarily the same thing. Presumably, before meeting Voldemort or the Death Eaters, Snape has a chance to mentally prepare himself, and focus his mind so he blocks all attempts at being probed. The event with Harry simply cause him off guard. In addition, I think the spell is more powerful, but less useful. It can force the thoughts to come, but the thoughts seem very random making it very difficult to determine truth at that moment in time. The GIFT or ABILITY of Legilimency, I speculate, is more a for of intuitive Psychic ability; a form of Seer Divination. One has an emaphathic sense of the other person's thoughts and feelings. I also speculate that the abilitiy of Legilimency is less visual and more emotional, and also, more realtime than the spell. _______________________________ Dennis, chiming in, trying to figure how no one has already mentioned this: After reading everyone's complicated theories on Occlumency and Legilimency, and Snape's ability respective thereof, I think I would like to offer a simple, and much neater possibility. We've established that Harry was a capable caster of the 'Protego' charm, which rebounded Snape's 'Legilimens' spell back toward him. Even that is failure, as the whole point of the exercise was to have Harry expel Snape from his mind without using his wand, as Snape pointed out after the Stinging Hex. Anyway, we look at the next Occlumency lesson where Harry had still not made progress on mentally deflecting the Legilimency spell. Harry cast 'protego' separating Snape from his wand. But that didn't stop Snape from ending the spell by simply shouting, "ENOUGH!" This leads me to believe that Occlumency is all about the control one has over his own mind, an idea reinforced many times in cannon. Snape merely had to think Harry had seen enough to end the intrusion. I think it likely that Snape's control of his own mind is such that he can actively select which memories to present to an intruder. Snape has made it clear in Harry's lessons that the key to success is to free your mind of thought and emotion. Let's say, for instance, that Lord V. is trying to determine whether Severus has gotten any clue about where Dumbledore may be hiding from talking with McGonagall, and doubts his honesty when he says no. Given that LV is quite talented naturally, it seems given to me that Snape might simply bury his emotion and fill his mind with useless drivel, like giving out detentions and zeros to Harry to satisfy LV. If there is no emotion to expose the lie, and no hint of contradictory memory, it is assumed he's telling the truth. In conclusion, Snape is revered as a good Occlumens because regardless of the spell cast, the strength of said spell, or the caster of the spell, it is him who remains in control of what is seen and what emotions are past between the two connected minds. The key to everything is to control what is available in the mind, and all the rest is irrelevant. Per cannon, a charm is superfluous in blocking memories from leaving the mind, if you can simply eliminate the memories so that they aren't there to escape in the first place, something that Snape is obviously skilled at, by reputation and by demonstration. Dennis From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 03:19:32 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:19:32 -0000 Subject: Fred and George abilities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89513 Sue B: I see there has been a post about Fred and George and leaving school, but I have another thought and forgive me if it has been discussed (I don't check the posts daily and the search facility is broader than the headings). Obviously, they leave school because they're restless and don't like it, but it seems also clear that they would have to be very, very good at everything to be able to run the kind of joke shop they have in mind. Including Potions, by the way. Forget Aurors - these guys are carrying out research and testing toxins while still at school. They're inventing things! When only small children they were already good enough at Transfiguration (BEFORE Hogwarts!) to turn Ron's teddy bear into a spider. They failed a lot of OWLs because they couldn't be bothered (as Mrs Weasley recognises) not because they were no good. No wonder their Mum is frustrated!:-) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 03:55:19 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:55:19 -0000 Subject: Albus Dumbledore Must Die & "Put yourself in my shoes" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89514 Phil wrote: Does anyone else feel that the pensieve will be a great cramming tool for accelerating Harry's learning? vmonte responds: Yes, and I it has been used in this way twice already. It sort of reminds me of the metal rod that is inserted into Neo's head in the movie the Matrix. vmonte From vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com Sat Jan 24 04:01:33 2004 From: vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com (vecseytj) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:01:33 -0000 Subject: perfume vs.book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermionekitten9" wrote: > Grace said > >If it's going to come down to what she gave both boys. I think > >Harry got the "better" gift. His planner actually talked. :p > > Kitten > What makes you think Ron's book didn't talk? I thought that the book > talking annoyed Harry, didn't he throw it across the room one time? > kitten vecsey Yes the book did annoy Harry. He promiced himself to toss it into the fire when Hermione wasn't looking. And I just listened to OOTP on tape recently and I got the impression that he was refering to his book as "like a diary except it talked saying "bla bla bla". I took it to mean, that diarys didn't talk to you. Not that Ron's didn't talk too. But, this is a weird thing to pick up on... but, i guess it is just the ships blasting bombs at each other.. oh no Hermione likes Harry NO.. she likes Ron? What does it matter? I want the adventure! I honestly can't hardly stand to wait until book 6 comes out! And I honestly don't think that JKR is going to answer this question anytime soon.... ie: "Ron couldn't you tell I like Harry better, I alway buy him better gifts?" What? Now if you had talked about the broom cleaning/repairing kit Hermione bought Harry, and Ron got candy beans. Well, now that says it all ... (Mahhahahaaaa) Okay, I couldn't resist, I know Harry got that for his birthday.. but, what did Ron get for his birthday? humm? Thanks for the post everyone.. I got a real smile out of it.. From vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com Sat Jan 24 04:17:36 2004 From: vecseytj at tampabay.rr.com (vecseytj) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:17:36 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > shrijnana wrote: > > I've had a few questions about Ginny Weasley... maybe they've been > > discussed here before; if so maybe someone less new to the group > can > > point me to the relevant posts. I think there's even more to Ginny > > than meets the eye, even more that the powerful witch an quiddich > > player she's growing into being. > > Hitomi: > I have no idea if this has been discussed before, so if it has I'm > the wrong person to ask. But you did mention some things I've > wondered about myself, so I thank you for bringing them up. > > shrijnana wrote: > > First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train > to > > Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to > her > > experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm not > so > > sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she was > > possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember > what > > I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would the > > dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? vecsey: Well, they can bring up Harry's memory of being 1 years old. How many 1 year old's remember anything into adulthood? No one I know. So ya I think that the dementors bring back memories that couldn't other wise be remembered. I guess that is one of the many things that make them so very rotten. > > Hitomi: > > Maybe Ginny heard > voices because she killed chickens, I don't know (though that would > be stupid in my opinion, and wouldn't really make sense, considering > they're animals and don't talk). I don't think she saw Tom > Riddle "die," so that can't be it. Maybe those tombs in Egypt had > an affect. I really don't have a clue, unless there is something > we're missing, which leads me right back to square one with our > speculation. Guess we'll have to wait for Book 6. ::sigh:: vecsey: Okay I love the chicken part of your message, But, I wondered too, why they were entranced. I guess this is something that isn't gonna come out til later.. oh well.. :) But, I must say that as I was listening to book 5 on tape recently, I kept feeling I was missing something.. that seemed right out in the open, but, it kept aluding me when I would try and tie it down, and figure out what was bugging me, but it would slip away. There is something important that about the department of mysterys that is nagging at my mind... oh well, maybe I'll think of it... or maybe it I will read it in book 6 and say "ohhh it was right there why didn't I see it!" From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Jan 24 04:27:44 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:27:44 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shrijnana" wrote: > I've had a few questions about Ginny Weasley... [snip] > > First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train to > Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to her > experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm not so > sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she was > possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember what > I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would the > dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? I think those are exactly the memories that the dementor dredged up, but I??m not convinced she had full access to them. She looked ??almost as bad as Harry felt?? but earlier in the scene her reaction is described exactly the same as Neville??s ?V both are said to be ??very pale?? ?V clearly more affected than Ron and Hermione but less than Harry. I think this is significant, because Ginny??s arrival in the compartment just in time for the Dementor seems so awkward that I believe she was placed there for the very purpose of comparing her reaction with the others??. As you point out, Ginny has little or no conscious memory of her possession, so I think the clue in this scene, in combination with the other scene you??ve brought up, relates to Neville. > But what really makes me wonder about her is her reaction to the stone > archway in the deparment of mysteries. Ron and Hermione have no > noticable reaction to it. Harry and Luna both hear voices behind the > veil, and Neville and Ginny are entranced by it. > > "On the other side, Ginny and Neville were staring, apparantly > entranced, at the veils too. Without speaking, Hermione took hold of > Ginny's arm, Ron Neville's, and they marched them firmly back to the > lowest stone bench..." (Pg. 775, US edition) > > At the end of OotP Luna refers to the voices behind the veil as those > of loved ones who have died. Harry, Neville, and Luna all have seen > people die - they can all see the thestrals - and all have loved ones > who have died. As far as we know, Ron and Hermione haven't. But what > about Ginny? Why is she entranced by the veil? I believe that the characters were drawn to the veil for one of two reasons: either a loved one has died (Harry and Luna, who can hear the voices and have lost parents), or because they have personally had a close encounter with death (Ginny and Harry, who are entranced by the veil). Neville is also entranced, leading me to believe he has had a near-death experience. But does Neville remember it? Which brings me to this point that Rachel brought up a day or two ago: > I might be making something out of nothing here but even on first > reading of the book I had some doubt as to the reason Neville gave > for being able to see the thestrals. When Umbridge asks Neville > "Whom did you see die?", he replies, "My...my grandad." (Chapter 21, ?? US version pg 449). [snip] That answer *does* seem a bit contrived, doesn??t it? Which is not Neville??s usual modus operandi. > I think there's a chance that the death that Neville experienced > in order to make him capable of seeing the thestrals may not really > be his grandad. A memory charm is capable of wiping someone's memory > but it can't wipe away the fact that the experience itself occurred > which would explain why Neville is still able to see the thestrals. I think so, too. And putting all of these pieces together, I reach the conclusion that Neville has both seen death *and* had a near- death experience himself. Yet his parents aren??t dead, and Neville wasn??t affected by the dementors like Harry was. Which suggests that Neville is suffering the effects of a memory charm. The possible near-death that immediately comes to mind is that Voldemort somehow tried to kill Neville, too, and marked him as he marked Harry. (Neville, like Harry, could handle the prophecy.) This would allow for a lot of much more interesting possibilities as to how the prophecy might play out. Really, this makes sense; there has to be more to the events the prophecy has foretold than a final showdown between Harry and Voldemort. Not only would it be boring, JKR has already done it. On the other hand, it??s always possible that the near-death experience is nothing more than witnessing his parents?? torture, or maybe absorbing a bit of it himself. What the speculation doesn??t answer, though, is who would have given Neville a memory charm and why. I think Neville??s parents?? insanity is part of this same mystery. The pieces we have now just don??t add up. Why were the Longbottoms left alive? Surely their torturers can??t have assumed that they would be rendered permanently insane from a little Crucio. There??s no evidence elsewhere in the books to suggest that this was a known effect of the curse. Do we *really* know that Cruciatus caused their insanity? And why aren??t they getting better? If intensive remedial potions and charms can produce improvement in Gilderoy Lockhart, surely they would help wizards as talented as the Longbottoms. One of my old pre-OOP theories was that it was an overwrought memory charm that caused Frank and Alice Longbottom to lose their sanity. The reappearance of Lockhart on the same ward where they??re imprisoned seems to reinforce that theory. My alternative theory was that the Longbottoms lost their sanity after being tortured (as Bertha Jorkins was) in order to break through a memory charm placed on them earlier, and that like Bertha??s, their ??minds and bodies were damaged beyond repair.?? Maybe the Lestranges extracted this information (though I can??t figure out why the Longbottoms would have already been memory charmed), or maybe someone in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement did it in order to learn the identities of the Longbottoms?? torturers and satisfy the public??s demand for convictions. In the latter case, it would be prudent to cast the charm on Neville as well, to erase his memory of his parents after the torture. And if the DMLE was responsible, they would have good reason to be continuing to cover up, which would explain why the Longbottoms aren??t getting any better. Then there??s Gran. Why is she so keen to revere her son??s memory that she destroys her grandson??s self-confidence in the process? I used to think she was in cahoots with the Lestranges and denigrated Neville??s talent in order to deflect suspicion about the reason for Neville??s poor memory. Gran??s support for Harry and cancellation of her subscription to the Daily Prophet seems to put that bit of speculation in the dustbin. A lot of other people used to believe she had put the charm on Neville to protect him from the memories. This is hard to square with the fact that Neville seems to know all the details about his parents?? torture, including the identity of the perpetrators. But what if Gran knows about the prophecy and wanted to excise any memory that Neville had been marked? What if she did it really badly? Yup, she'd need to cover it up. Ok, I guess that??s enough mischief for today. Debbie From blondeangelkiss at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 22:16:15 2004 From: blondeangelkiss at yahoo.com (Bridget) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:16:15 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > curlyshirleywhirley wrote: > > > And, as we also know, Snape knew about Quirrell and LV, and > continually threatened Quirrell, and once defied him by saving > Harry's life. LV probably believed Snape had changed sides, which > is why I don't understand how LV can't at least suspect Snape to be > a traitor. Snape walks a very line, and since Rowling has told us > to watch out for him in interviews, I'm not entirely sure whether or > not he can be trusted, even though DD and Hermione both do. Guess > we'll have to wait and see. I have A theory about why Voldy doesn't suspect Snape after the Voldy/Quirrell Stuff: Snape didn't or at least wasn't supposed to know that Voldemort was the reason Quirrell was trying to steal the Stone and kill Harry. He obvioulsy knew Quirrell was a bad guy and tried to stop him, but that doesn't mean he knew Voldy was involced. Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember there being anything saying that Snape knew about Voldemort. Although I do think snape is incredibly intelligent and may have figured out what was going on, I don't believe he let on to know about Voldy if he did know. Therefore he could conceivably go to Voldy and say something to the effect of "Master I didn't realize he was working for you, otherwise i wouldn't have interfered." And would then be welcome back w/ open arms. If Snape did know, we don't know that Voldy knew Snape knew. If I've missed anything in the books that says Snape knew about Voldy being involved and that Voldy knew that Snape knew, please let me know, cause I haven't seen anything to implicate that, (although i do tend to get excited while reading the HP books and sometimes skip paragraphs to get to the exciting stuff faster so and its possible that I just missed it.) But unless there is reason to beilieve that Snape knew and that Voldy knows he knew, there is no reason for Voldy to not let Snape back in as a DE. -Bridget ( From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 23:35:27 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:35:27 -0000 Subject: Neville/Prophesy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89519 There's too much evidence to support the theory that Harry is, indeed, the 'one' with the power to vanquish the dark lord. However, I have to ask, why would JK mention Neville as an alternative, if there's no question in the matter? I think we need to have an indepth analysis on the 'prophesy', of course, there's probably already been one! From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 24 02:28:03 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:28:03 -0000 Subject: Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89520 Hitomi wrote: Ok, I don't know about all that :) But I do actually think Snape is more than likely a pure-blood, he did refer to Lily as a "mudblood," neh? And he was in Slytherin, and they seem to be mostly pure- blood. Though there is still the possiblity Snape was just being hypocritical. Sawsan here: Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. No one mentioned Snape's name while observing it, which leads me to believe that he is not a pure blood. Most likely if the snape family is pureblood, their name would be up there and someone would have pointed it out, being that Snape is really disliked by Harry and Sirius. Also, in the piensive scene, when Snape calls Lily a mudblood, she seemed to take it like, ' I know YOUR not talking'. At least that's the way I read it. SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very Slytherinish :P From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 03:47:41 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:47:41 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89521 Pg. 591- OOP US Edition: "...It is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. .... "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job. Now, if you are ready, we will start agin..." I've always wondered how exactly Snape was spying on Voldemort when we know that he has the capability of knowing when someone is lying to him. I came across an interesting theory: Snape is using polyjuice potion containing Barty Crouch jr.'s hair. The proof: Barty wasn't killed. He was given the dementor's kiss. Victims of the kiss are still alive, but comatose. His hair would still be usable. Voldemort doesn't know what happened to Barty Crouch, jr. The last thing he knew was Harry touched the port key, and was gone from the graveyard. Snape left the hospital ward, 'prepared'a little while later, to do what? If he was going to spy, which the above quote in my estimation confirms this, wouldn't it be easier to return to Voldemort as Barty jr., than Snape? Barty, who did everything VL told him to, including getting Harry through the Tri-Wizard Tournament, no easy feat by his own admission. VL referred to Barty as his faithful servant, he probably wouldn't be probing the feelings of Barty as heavily as Snape. Can anyone tell me if there's any referance to the public, or even the students at Hogwarts finding out the Barty was masquerading as Moody? From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Jan 24 04:13:26 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:13:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP (WAS: Ginny Weasley Message-ID: <8d.1d76625.2d434ae6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89522 In a message dated 1/23/2004 9:11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, dh.shrijnana at verizon.net writes: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89523 --dh.shrijnana at v. writes:> <> For me, with Ron was going through more confidence problems than usual, he wasn't about to start being critiqued by Hermione on how to kiss, or anything else. It would devestate him. He needed something with a bit more guarantee as to success. So maybe he was doing more than just practicing to get on the Quidditch team when he was MIA. I think Luna was helping him through his problems. This seemed to leave Hermione with Harry a bit more, but then I saw the way Hermione and Ginny had become closer - to the point of knitting together for the common good of SPEW. Maybe they got together on a few other things too - like Hermione being a big sister and explaining that Harry was far too immature for any real relationship, and that if Ginny didn't get a little experience herself, she'd never be able to handle Harry when he finally was ready. I don't think Ginny has given up on Harry at all - she's just biding her time. Where Neville is going is anyone's guess. Whether it will be with Luna or not, they'll both probably play a very important part in the coming books. Kathy From laikokae at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 06:51:54 2004 From: laikokae at hotmail.com (Kae *) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:51:54 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How's Snape Doing it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89524 lizvega2 wrote: > >Pg. 591- OOP US Edition: > > >"...It is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to >his Death Eaters." > >"No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. > >"Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job. Now, if >you are ready, we will start agin..." > >I've always wondered how exactly Snape was spying on Voldemort when >we know that he has the capability of knowing when someone is lying >to >him. I came across an interesting theory: Snape is using polyjuice >potion containing Barty Crouch jr.'s hair. > > I've come across this theory as well. And it makes sense. But I maintain that how Snape is getting his information has something to do with the Malfoys. In the scene where Snape turns up at Grimmauld Place to tell Harry he will be taking Occulemency lessons with him, Snape and Sirius have an interesting exchange. Sirius calls Snape "Lucius Malfoy's lapdog" and Snape tells Sirius that Lucius recognised him on the train platform in his animagus' form. Snape obviously still has close contact with Lucius. I doubt very much that Lucius would have anything to do with Snape if he was still the "traitor who will be killed, of course" mentioned in Goblet of Fire. Somehow Snape has wheedled his way back into Voldemort's grace, or at least Malfoy's. I am very interested to see where JKR is going with this. Two cents, Laik _________________________________________________________________ ninemsn Premium transforms your e-mail with colours, photos and animated text. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Jan 24 07:42:05 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:42:05 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89525 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shrijnana" > wrote: > > > I might be making something out of nothing here but even on > first > > reading of the book I had some doubt as to the reason Neville gave > > for being able to see the thestrals. When Umbridge asks Neville > > "Whom did you see die?", he replies, "My...my grandad." (Chapter > 21, > ?? US version pg 449). [snip] > > That answer *does* seem a bit contrived, doesn't it? Which is not > Neville's usual modus operandi. > > > I think there's a chance that the death that Neville > experienced > > in order to make him capable of seeing the thestrals may not > really > > be his grandad. A memory charm is capable of wiping someone's > memory > > but it can't wipe away the fact that the experience itself > occurred > > which would explain why Neville is still able to see the thestrals. > > I think so, too. And putting all of these pieces together, I reach > the conclusion that Neville has both seen death *and* had a near- > death experience himself. Yet his parents aren't dead, and Neville > wasn't affected by the dementors like Harry was. Which suggests > that Neville is suffering the effects of a memory charm. > > The possible near-death that immediately comes to mind is that > Voldemort somehow tried to kill Neville, too, and marked him as he > marked Harry. (Neville, like Harry, could handle the prophecy.) Also, Neville was dropped out of a upstairs window. If it was high enough up, this could have been a near death experience. Of course, it could be that he saw his grandad die, but it wasn't of natural causes. He could, for example, have been killed by Death Eaters: "'It's Longbottom, isn't it?' sneered Lucius Malfoy. 'Well, your grandmother is used to losing family members to our cause... your death will not come as a great shock.'" -OoF This could just be referring to Frank & Alice's insanity, but the word losing seems to imply at least one death. Also, from GoF (emphasis mine): "The Longbottoms were very popular," said Dumbledore. "The *attacks* on them came after Voldemort's fall from power, just when everyone thought they were safe. Those *attacks* caused a wave of fury such as I have never known. The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence was - given their condition - none too reliable." Notice how DD says *attacks* in the plural. This would seem to imply that the Longbottoms have been attacked more then once. Perhaps Nevilles grandfather was killed in one of the other attacks? --Arcum From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 24 07:42:26 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:42:26 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: Lizvega: > I don't see any problem with the word 'muggle'. There had to be a > way for JKR to distinguish between 'wizards' and 'non magic folk'. > And, not to be argumentative, but isn't it a stretch trying to > correlate "that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the > > middle. And that pejorative term for male homosexual that has a > double-g in the middle..." to a word that means, > essentially, 'unable to do magic? > > Are all words with double 'g's derrogatory? How about hugger? Is > that bad? Or jogger? Geoff: I'm not sure I would like to be called a boggart.... :-) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 24 08:03:48 2004 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:03:48 -0000 Subject: The Death of Sirius Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89527 My feelings towards OotP are ambiguous. For I threw the book against the wall several times. I remember cold horror washing over me at points. Yet, when I finished the book, I was overall delighted with it, and rereading I've grown to like it even more. Furthermore, I find the things that most people dislike about the book are the ones that delighted me even the first time around. Sirius's death, for instance. Have I ever mentioned before how much I love JKR's little trick of making tangible things tangible? Dementors, the Mirror of Erised, and now the Veil. No, it wasn't 'realistic' for Sirius to fall surprised and gracefully through the Veil of Death. (It's one those many moments in the series that makes me realize how indebted Rowling is to C.S. Lewis's imagination, this trick of concretization being one of Lewis's. Comparison to the end of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader will *not* be indulged in here.) When Sirius falls through the Veil, it most definitely is one of the series' most 'mystical' moments. Sirius isn't just Sirius here. He's Everyman. When you have Death made real on the stage, the person who falls through isn't just dying on their own account. Their death naturally enters into the concrete symbol. You're busy with your life, you're struggling but with things sort of under control, when you fall surprised to death, and are quickly forgotten in the ongoing commotion of life. No, Sirius's death is not realistic in the sense that "Death By Falling Through Veil" is a common result of coroner's reports. It's real on a different level, a mythic level. This is probably a good time to pause a second as I know that people's eyes are suddenly glazing over and can predict the response. "Well, yeah, it didn't work emotionally so now you're *analyzing* it, and coming up with a fancy theory of how it works mechanically." But believe me, when I say things like *mythic level* I don't mean less heart-felt, less visceral, less immediate in response. I think that it works through this level for me. Obviously, it doesn't work for other people. I'm going to be so rash as to suggest that JKR's habit of genre slippage may bear the blame for this. The death scene is getting close to high allegory, and while I adore these parts of the series, have since PS/SS, other people don't, and are here for other things. Consequently, a major character dying in a disliked genre might be rather dry for a good many readers. This is, of course, only a guess on my part. But while I'm talking about Sirius's death, I think something needs to be said about what aspect of death JKR is portraying. A good many quotes have been passed around from JKR about death as brutal, sudden etc. but none of them seem to address the general ambience of death in OotP. And I'm not surprised. If I were JKR, I wouldn't be caught dead talking about *that*. OotP is about *seductive* death. Unlike GoF, where death is brutal and destroying, death in OotP is inviting. Harry is almost lured through the veil by the voices just beyond. He wishes for death when Voldemort has him in his grip. And Sirius - well, Sirius had a death wish all through the book and finally has it granted in that last scene. Death is soft, a quick end to trouble. And on the other side is, as Luna and Harry's conversation suggests, happiness once again. "Going to bed after a very long nap," says Dumbledore in PS/SS and now at the age of 15, Harry is already feeling very tired. "Darkling I listen and for many a time, I have been half in love with easeful Death." - John Keats, Ode to a Nightingale. Eileen From helenhorsley at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 09:47:27 2004 From: helenhorsley at hotmail.com (dorapye) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:47:27 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > I have a question regarding Lily Evens Potter. > > Is she the same age as James Potter? > > One reason this bothers me is in the pensive scene in Snape's Worst > Memory, Chapter 28, OotP - American Ed., there is no mention of Lily > in the exam room. She comes in to our conscious as sitting by the > lake outside. It strikes me as odd that after the jolt of seeing his > father in front of him in the Great Hall, Harry doesn't look for his > mum. Harry's attention is taken from James back 4 rows to Sirius, > then on to Remus and then he thinks Peter must be here somewhere and > actively looks for him before he finds Pettigrew sitting a few desks > away. Harry doesn't even think of looking for his mother. Does > anyone else think this is odd? > > Why wouldn't JKR have put Lily in the Great Hall if she is the same > age and would be also sitting her DADA OWL? Wouldn't James have > glanced toward Lily after striking out the 'L.E.' he had doodled on > his paper? If he, as a 15 year old boy (with sex on the brain), was > crushing on the girl that much, I imagine any thought of her would > take his attention over to where she would be. dorapye: Hi Mandy. I actually thought she *was* in the exam room, amongst the 'gang of chattereing girls' that eventually heads off towards the lake. Heres's my canon: Ootp p566 (UK Ed) ' Harry looked around and glimpsed Snape a short way away, moving between the tables towards the doors of the Entrance Hall, still absorbed in his exam paper.... A gand of chattereing girls separated Snape from James, Sirius and Lupin, and by planting himslef in their midst, Harry managed to keep Snape in sight while strainin ghis ears to catch the voices of James and his friends.' As they head out onot the lawns, we assume that Harry has manafgted to detach himself from the crowd of students leaving the exam hall as later on p567 'To his intense relief, however, when James and his three friends strode off down the lawn towards the lake, Snape followed, still poring over the exam paper and apparently with no fixed idea of where he was going. By keeping a little ahaead of him, harry managed to maintain a close watch on James and the others.' The gang of girls are not emtnioned here. Then on p568: 'The sunlight was dazzling on the smooth surface of the lake, on the bank of which the group of laughing girls who had just left the Great hall were sitting, with their shoes and socks off, cooling their feet in the water.' The same gang of girls that Harry got stuck amongst as he left the Great hall, agreed? Whilst James is playing with the snitch on p568: 'Harry noticed that his afther had a habit of rumpling his hairas though to keep it from getting too tidy, and he also kept looking over at teh girls by the water's edge.' James seems to know Lily is sitting amongst these girls, would you agree? Then on p570: '"Leave Hhim ALONE!" James and Sirius looked round. James's free hand immediately jumped to his hair. It was one of the girls from the lake edge. She had thick, dark red hair that fell to her shoulders, and startlingly green almond-shaped eyes - Harry's eyes.' So, Lily was amongst the girls who had just left the exam. Was she amongst the group as they left the Great Hall? It's quite likely that the gang of girls leaving the Hall would have loitered round the Entrance Hall or the steps outside to gather other friends as they emerged from the exam and *then* head off to the lake, and this would explain how Harry detaches himslef from the gang of girls. So, if you find it hard to believe that Harry would lurk amongst a gang of girls and not notice that one of them was his 15/16 year old mother, that can be explained away easily. So, from the text, I conclude that Lily *was* in the exam and is therefore the same age as James & co. As to why Harry didn't look for her amongst the students in the Hall, the only explanation I can suggest is that when Harry enters the exam room, the exam is nearly over, and he has only just picked out the faces of Snape and the Marauders before Flitwick announces "Quills down!" and then everyone is getting out of their seats and milling around the Entrance Hall. Perhaps if Harry had had a little longer to search about the Hall, he may have located her. As to why James was not looking in Lily's direction during the exam, but managed a backwards glance to Sirius (after first checking that Flitwick wasn't looking) well, it could be that he could not see her easily from where he was sitting. She may have been in a far corner of the Hall, somewhere he'd struggle to turn to discretely. Anyway. Hope this has helped your quest, one way or the other. dorapye From a_williams1 at pacific.edu Sat Jan 24 09:48:34 2004 From: a_williams1 at pacific.edu (Aesha Williams) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:48:34 -0800 Subject: Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) References: <1074930189.39625.81997.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002501c3e25f$3be15720$7f420a0a@bre.uop.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 89529 Hitomi: >... Ginny and... I also think we'll see more of her because of Quidditch, what with the only old member on >the team being Harry, so he'll probably end up Quidditch Captain. Fred and George are gone, and >Angelina, Alicia, and Katie just graduated. So, if Ginny is a Chaser, maybe Harry will get to know her >better (good point for H/G shippers, anyway). Well, I can't get the website to let me look at the posts, and I'm on digest, so this may have been answered already. But I think there's been speculation as to whether Katie *is* actually leaving Hogwarts in book 5. Ginny only mentions that Alicia and Angelina are leaving, she doesn't mention Katie. Of course, it's been mentioned that Katie wasn't new to the team when Harry first began, so she had to be older or she would have been a first year player, which we know hasn't happened in 100 years... but that was explained away by her being a reserve. Does that make sense? :) Also, I don't know if I'm the only one, but I'm not going to assume that Harry is going to be the Quidditch captain next year. Yes, he was unfairly banned by Umbridge, but he still is not a member of the team at this point. Of course he won't have to try out, but I don't think that we can automatically assume Harry will be captain, especially using the argument that he's the only member from the old team- unless you mean the team with Angelina, the twins, etc. on it- because as it is now, Ron is on the team, Ginny, Jack Sloper, and... let's see... there's another one who replaced one of the twins, right? Anyway, I'm hoping Ron will be captain. It would fit so nicely with what he saw in the Mirror. Ooh, wait... he just saw that he was head boy and holding the Quidditch cup, not Captain?.... Ron is my favorite character, and I wish he would get a little more serious time. And I sincerely hope that the fact that he's more in the background than Hermione means he's not long for this world. I just wish she wouldn't paint him as such a dolt sometimes... but then again, it seems like I always have greater affection for the sidekick than the main character... I care much more for Samwise than Frodo, too. Aesha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 00:18:58 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:18:58 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <000d01c3e24e$7abb0830$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89530 > Let me rephrase that, the term woman isn't an insult when referring to > women. In your example he would presumably be referring to men (although you > do get women in the army and personally I'd have a hard time taking that as > an insult if it was directed at me - because it's not, it's a statement of > fact) > > K The term woman in that example would mean weakness. Women (nine- tenths of the time) are physically weaker than men. It is an insult. It isn't insulting just to be called a woman. There are secondary meanings to verything. Ever hear "You play ball like a girl", that is one too. Andrew From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 03:38:44 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:38:44 -0000 Subject: Fred and George abilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89531 Sue B: > I see there has been a post about Fred and George and leaving school, > They failed a lot of OWLs because they couldn't be bothered > (as Mrs Weasley recognises) not because they were no good. No > wonder their Mum is frustrated!:-) I thought they did well in school and in their OWLS? Whizbang From flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 05:05:48 2004 From: flutingfrenzy at hotmail.com (Diana Walter) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 05:05:48 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's right > hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort didn't want to > kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's somehow > manipulated time to come back and save his family. ...only to get beaten up by his own grandson. Oh the irony. It is kinda a neat idea, though...so who does Mark Evans the 10-year- old live with in Little Whinging? -daw From warhound at accessus.net Sat Jan 24 05:27:37 2004 From: warhound at accessus.net (Beverly Adams) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 05:27:37 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shrijnana" wrote: > I think there's even more to Ginny > than meets the eye, even more that the powerful witch an quiddich > player she's growing into being. Beverly replies: I think so, too. I really liked the way her character developed in OotP. She is so much stronger and more assertive. I'm very pleased she got on the Quidditch team. Shrijnana continues: > First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train > to Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to > her experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm > not so sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she > was possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember > what I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would > the dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? Beverly replies: I do believe it was her experiences in COS. I think that Voldemort's possession of Ginny left a mark on her so she may not be able to remember conciously what happened, but there is something deep down. Plus remember that when she finally did wake up in the Chamber, she did see the dead Basilisk, Harry with blood on him, and the Diary with the fang in it. After all, she knew the Diary was harmful to her because she tried to get rid of it and then went through Harry's possessions to get it back when she saw him with it. Even though she couldn't remember specifically what she did, she knows she was touched by Lord Voldemort and did some horrendous things for him. I also think that the reason Neville is affected by the Dementors is because of the memory of his parents being tortured. Shrijana adds: > But what really makes me wonder about her is her reaction to the > stone archway in the deparment of mysteries. Ron and Hermione have > no noticable reaction to it. Harry and Luna both hear voices behind > the veil, and Neville and Ginny are entranced by it. >(snip) > Why is she entranced by the veil? Beverly replies: I wondered about it, too. We know the veil is a portal of some sort-- to death or an alternate dimension--where people who have gone through can't come back. My impression is that Ginny and Neville were not seeing it as a negative force like Ron and Hermione but more of a positive thing. Almost like they were seeing "the other side" and being entranced by the sight of it. I don't know. It's hard to glean any information from what is written. Why Neville and Ginny specifically would react like that to the veil, I don't think we have enough information. There has to be a commonality there, but it's a "Mystery"! Shrijana then asks: > And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed > Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. Beverly replies: Virginia is a good guess. Can't think of any other name that "Ginny" would be a nickname for. (Jennifer? Gina? Nah.) Sorry, not very creative right now. Shrijana wraps it up with: > I have no idea about a H/G relationship... but I'm betting Ginny > plays a big role in the next two books whether a relationship happens > or not. Beverly replies: I'm not much of a SHIPper so it doesn't matter who winds up with whom, but I am looking forward to Ginny's future role! I hope she helps Harry defeat LV. Maybe with her incredible Bat Bogey Hex! ;> From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 05:59:49 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 05:59:49 -0000 Subject: Powers of the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89534 lizvega2: > In OOP the room with the veil is referred to by Dumbledore as > the 'death chamber'. > Does this mean that the wizarding world has an equivalent to the gas chamber/electric chair? > > I was under the impression that all wizards, even the really bad > ones, were sent to Azkaban. <> > All of the death eaters who were caught were sent to Azkaban, not > one word about being executed. > If these people, surely the worst of the worst, weren't even > sentenced to death, who would be? > Frost: I always assumed it was. The set up of the room makes it reasonable to seem so, as its compared by Harry to the Wizenmoget court room, and it's "auditorium like." Also, the choice of the words "Death Chamber" is rather strong, and has a set meaning in both the USA and British English. I thought the Arch, being ancient, might be an old way of ritual killing. It's neat, quick, and seemingly painless. You have a good point about the Death Eaters not being executed, but I think it would still make sense for the Death Chamber to have been a room for formalized executions. After all, in our world its a modern thing to be against the death penalty. It used to be that a good hanging, or beheading, was a afternoons entertainment. Kinda' grizzly, but who is to say that the death chamber isn't a remnant of an older time when Wizards did use the Death Sentence. And maybe they still do, in extremely extreme cases. Such as if the had actually Captured and tried Lord Voldemort. lizvega2: > Of course, the veil in the 'death chamber' may not be there to serve that purpose. Perhaps it is there as a portal to death? Death would be one of the mysteries the the MM would study in the dept. of mysteries, surely? >> But, if it is a portal to death, and not a death device, then why couldn't Sirius be retrieved? >> Frost: That's one problem I have with the Death Chamber being an room for experimenting with death. The other is that all the adults seem to know and understand what the veil was, and Lupin didn't even question that Sirius could come back. His voice was breaking with emotion as he held Harry back from going in after Sirius. He knew that Sirius was dead, and I don't think he would have been so certain if Sirius just got a stun to the chest. I could see it as a place where they have stored a powerful artifact that represents the crossing into death, or the veil of death or what not. But I don't think they can experiment with it very much other than "whoops, there's another dead owl." There seemed to be a certain accepted finality with passing through it. Frost From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 06:18:55 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 06:18:55 -0000 Subject: Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89535 > Sawsan here: > Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black > ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. No one > mentioned Snape's name while observing it, which leads me to believe > that he is not a pure blood. Most likely if the snape family is > pureblood, their name would be up there and someone would have pointed > it out, being that Snape is really disliked by Harry and Sirius. > > Also, in the piensive scene, when Snape calls Lily a mudblood, she > seemed to take it like, ' I know YOUR not talking'. At least that's > the way I read it. > > SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very Slytherinish :P Hitomi: You definitely have a point, and he could very well be a half-blood (I doubt he's muggle-born, but you never know). My only thing is Snape might have still been on that family tree, or is so distant his family is not on it. The Notts, Goyles, Crabbes, etc., were not on there either (that we know of, because it isn't mentioned). But they very well could be. All I'm saying is that we have no idea WHAT Snape is. He could be either; neither would surprise me, to be honest. And he is definitely very Slytherin-ish :) If any one can find canon evidence proving either point, I would love to hear it. I've been looking, and besides what Sawsan and I have found, I haven't seen anything definite. Sleep or stay up well, everyone! ~ Hitomi From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 07:08:48 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:08:48 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89536 elfundeb wrote: > I believe that the characters were drawn to the veil for one of two > reasons: either a loved one has died (Harry and Luna, who can hear > the voices and have lost parents), or because they have personally > had a close encounter with death (Ginny and Harry, who are entranced > by the veil). Neville is also entranced, leading me to believe he > has had a near-death experience. Hitomi: I'm not arguing with most of your points, because you brought up some good ones, but Neville can see thestrals because he saw his grandfather die (according to what he says). He's in the same category as Luna, and we don't know if he has ever had a near-death experience, but he has seen death, so he would be attracted by the veil regardless, by your theory, which I rather liked, though I don't think it necessarily has to be the death of a loved one. Probably just if you've seen death. Harry didn't exactly love Cedric, just respected him, though I guess that could be seen as a form of love, if you want to get technical. Though I still think it's probably if you've seen anyone die, loved one or not. Death, no matter who it is, will always be horrific, at least to an extent. elfundeb wrote: > But does Neville remember it? Which brings me to this point that > Rachel brought up a day or two ago: > > > I might be making something out of nothing here but even on > first > > reading of the book I had some doubt as to the reason Neville gave > > for being able to see the thestrals. When Umbridge asks Neville > > "Whom did you see die?", he replies, "My...my grandad." (Chapter > 21, > ?? US version pg 449). [snip] > > That answer *does* seem a bit contrived, doesn??t it? Which is not > Neville??s usual modus operandi. Hitomi: I didn't see his answer as contrived, more as hesitant, and anxious, which is VERY Neville. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know if we're reading too much into this is all. What we do know is that Neville has seen death, not that he has had a near-death experience. Oh, and JKR said in the Royal Albert Hall interview, in order to view the thestrals, that you have to have had seen the death and let it sink in a bit, so I would say it's a safe bet that Neville remembers whoever he saw die, if it happens to not be his grandfather, though personally, I think it probably was. elfundeb wrote: > I think so, too. And putting all of these pieces together, I reach > the conclusion that Neville has both seen death *and* had a near- > death experience himself. Yet his parents aren??t dead, and Neville > wasn??t affected by the dementors like Harry was. Which suggests > that Neville is suffering the effects of a memory charm. Hitomi: Again, you have to have had let the death sink in, so I don't know about all this. Galadriel Waters came up with that memory charm theory (at least, that's where I first heard it), but I'm not entirely sure I buy it. But she does have proof, just as we have proof to discredit it. We'll just have to wait for the next book, I suppose. elfundeb wrote: > The possible near-death that immediately comes to mind is that > Voldemort somehow tried to kill Neville, too, and marked him as he > marked Harry. (Neville, like Harry, could handle the prophecy.) > This would allow for a lot of much more interesting possibilities as > to how the prophecy might play out. Really, this makes sense; there > has to be more to the events the prophecy has foretold than a final > showdown between Harry and Voldemort. Not only would it be boring, > JKR has already done it. Hitomi: This didn't make sense. When would LV have gotten to Neville, and where were his parents? (and wouldn't DD know about this?) That, and Neville needs to have SEEN a DEATH in order to see the thestrals. And yes, Neville could handle the prophecy, but that has nothing to do with it. Anyone could handle the prophecy, once LV or Harry lifted it off the shelf, which is why Lucius and Bellatrix keep asking for it. Do we know if Neville could have picked it up? No, but I do think he would have gone mad if he had. Check out this link on MuggleNet.com, as to why Harry is *the One*, and not Neville. I'm not saying Neville doesn't have an important role to play, far from, but there can only be ONE, if the prophecy is true. http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt02.shtml Maline has covered everything much more eloquently than I could. And PLEASE take the time to read this before you contradict me, I completely understand if you don't agree with me, but this editorial states COMPLETELY where I stand from, besides which I was soon going to post my own rant on the subject concerning the prophecy. And giving the link also saves bandwidth :) elfundeb wrote: > On the other hand, it??s always possible that the near-death > experience is nothing more than witnessing his parents?? torture, or > maybe absorbing a bit of it himself. > > What the speculation doesn??t answer, though, is who would have given > Neville a memory charm and why. I think Neville??s parents?? insanity > is part of this same mystery. The pieces we have now just don??t add > up. Why were the Longbottoms left alive? Surely their torturers > can??t have assumed that they would be rendered permanently insane > from a little Crucio. There??s no evidence elsewhere in the books to > suggest that this was a known effect of the curse. Do we *really* > know that Cruciatus caused their insanity? Hitomi: I agree, we don't know enough about what happened to Neville's parents, such as where Neville was, but we can assume the Curse caused their insanity pretty safely. Bellatrix admits as much towards the end of Book 5, when threatening Neville, and DD originally told Harry that was the cause, so if DD believe the Curse can cause insanity, it probably can. And besides, any form of torture, apparently that bad, can probably cause insanity if used long enough, neh? elfundeb wrote: > And why aren??t they getting better? If intensive remedial potions > and charms can produce improvement in Gilderoy Lockhart, surely they > would help wizards as talented as the Longbottoms. Hitomi: Again, this is a theory I first heard from Galadriel Waters. We don't know this for sure, though there might be something up with those wrappers Neville's mum is handing him. And Gilderoy doesn't seem to be much better, in my opinion. Still has no real idea who he is. I'm not throwing the "Evil St.Mungo's" theory out the window, but I think we're assuming things we don't have enough proof of. Though again, there could be some truth to it. Waiting until Book 6... elfundeb wrote: > Then there??s Gran. Why is she so keen to revere her son??s memory > that she destroys her grandson??s self-confidence in the process? I > used to think she was in cahoots with the Lestranges and denigrated > Neville??s talent in order to deflect suspicion about the reason for > Neville??s poor memory. Gran??s support for Harry and cancellation of > her subscription to the Daily Prophet seems to put that bit of > speculation in the dustbin. A lot of other people used to believe > she had put the charm on Neville to protect him from the memories. > This is hard to square with the fact that Neville seems to know all > the details about his parents?? torture, including the identity of > the perpetrators. But what if Gran knows about the prophecy and > wanted to excise any memory that Neville had been marked? What if > she did it really badly? Yup, she'd need to cover it up. Hitomi: Ok, I think this is WAY pushing it. Gran just might be like that, you know, like some fathers who constantly compare one son who is good at say, football, to one who isn't. Neville probably just doesn't live up to her expectations, he's not the most bold person alive. Neville has never striked me as someone who would have been very secure to begin with. And if you want to compare him to Harry, Harry was torn down his entire life, neglected, verbally abused, at home and school, and he had NO real friends or loving family. Neville's situation wasn't quite as severe, and he did have family who loved him, just probably didn't do the best job of showing it. And Harry has come out more... secure, courageous? Those aren't the words I'm looking for, but he is definitely more of the "hero- figure" than Neville, he's done things the last five years that would probably have killed Neville. I'm NOT saying Neville is cowardly, I just think he is more of an insecure person, which IS NOT a weakness, just a difference in people. Getting back on track, I don't think Gran is in cahoots with anybody. Again, I could be wrong, but we have no real proof of that, and from what Neville has said, she seems to support DD and Harry. I just think we're starting to pull theories out of the air. And Neville, to our knowledge, knows as much about his parents' torture as DD or Harry. We don't know if he was there or not, though he might have been, but he would have only been two- years-old when it happened. The only thing that could pull that memory up would be a Dementor; there wouldn't have been a need for a memory charm when he was two, if such were the case. Wow, that was long. But thanks, Deb, your post has made me think. :) ~ Hitomi From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 07:27:06 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:27:06 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89537 Bridget wrote: > I have A theory about why Voldy doesn't suspect Snape after the > Voldy/Quirrell Stuff: Snape didn't or at least wasn't supposed to > know that Voldemort was the reason Quirrell was trying to steal > the Stone and kill Harry. He obviously knew Quirrell was a bad guy > and tried to stop him, but that doesn't mean he knew Voldy was > involved. > Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember there being anything > saying that Snape knew about Voldemort. Although I do think Snape > is incredibly intelligent and may have figured out what was going > on, I don't believe he let on to know about Voldy if he did know. > Therefore he could conceivably go to Voldy and say something to > the effect of "Master I didn't realize he was working for you, > otherwise I wouldn't have interfered." And would then be welcome > back w/ open arms. If Snape did know, we don't know that Voldy knew > Snape knew. Hitomi: No, Bridget you're absolutely right. (Or, at least, I think you are, I don't have Book 1 with me ::sheepish grin::) We DON'T know that Snape knew it was LV, just as we don't know that LV knew if Snape knew it was him or not (oy! that sounds really confusing). I was assuming too much; thanks for pointing that out. My only thing, LV being LV, it would still surprise me if he didn't, at the very least, suspect Snape of betrayal. Like I said, I think Snape treads a very fine line, and is playing very dangerously. And though he may be trustworthy, he never exactly shows all his cards, so Snape makes me just a little bit... anxious, I guess is the word I'm looking for. But thereto, Snape is also a practiced Occlumens, just as LV knows Legilimency. Snape may be able to lie convincingly in front of LV, though I would be surprised if LV didn't know Snape practiced Occlumency. DD always seems to know just about everything, and LV is kind of the same way. We don't know enough about Snape or the situation, but it does make me think. I just wanted to hear other thoughts on that. Thanks again Bridget! ~ Hitomi From SnapesRaven at web.de Sat Jan 24 08:54:33 2004 From: SnapesRaven at web.de (SnapesRaven) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:54:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death chamber (was: Powers of the Veil) References: Message-ID: <001501c3e258$a68158c0$ea50bfd5@henrike> No: HPFGUIDX 89538 lizvega2: >> In OOP the room with the veil is referred to by Dumbledore as the 'death chamber'. Does this mean that the wizarding world has an equivalent to the gas chamber/electric chair? I was under the impression that all wizards, even the really bad ones, were sent to Azkaban. If these people, surely the worst of the worst, weren't even sentenced to death, who would be? Perhaps it is there as a portal to death? Death would be one of the mysteries the the MM would study in the dept. of mysteries, surely? But, if it is a portal to death, and not a death device, then why couldn't Sirius be retrieved? << Good morning! : ) I gave that chamber some thought myself and here it is: I don't think this expression has been picked because the veil can be used to execute people - I rather think it is, as you pointed out, a portal, and thus not necessarily meant to be 'used' on purpose. I haven't come to a conclusion regarding the finality of falling/stepping? through this veil. Surely, people who pass this 'border' cannot come back immediately but seem - I am referring to Luna here - to stay behind it, whispering (Harry heard it, too). The Dementor's kiss is worse than death. To me it is perfectly clear why the death Eaters were sent to Azkaban, probably waiting for their kiss... rather than 'just' vanishing through a veil (btw, we haven't come to know what exactly the consequences are - JKR, I hope you don't let us down, but I'm sure you won't!) which presumably doesn't cost them their souls. I imagine the veil and falling through it more harmless to the 'victim' than a Dementor's kiss because, like Nearly Headless Nick said, there's the possibility for an afterlife Sirius has apparently chosen. I don't think that as a soulless ...creature one can 'live' an afterlife. So the veil is rather cruel to those who remain but in my opinion not to those who pass thrugh it. Indeed I think that death is a mystery in the WW... the chamber is located in the department of Mysteries, after all. ; ) There is surely much to discover about this phenomenon, and the archway seems to me as an interesting object of study. Maybe there is some research going on featuring the stepping through this veil, trying to find out if any contact - and if so, what kind - is still possible. There may be many methods of experimenting with that veil. I think that symbolism is, as always, a very important component here. There can, however, be different ways to interpret the Death chamber. (Ok, this was superflowous, sorry, I know that you know...) First, one could wonder why the room is built like an amphitheatre, perhaps designed to fit many wizards and witches to watch the proceedings on the dais. There are two options: First, it could be for research purposes as pointed out above. Second, it could really be for spectators to watch an execution. But as I already said, this in in my view not the purpose. The second point is the dais itself. When Iread OotP, I saw the archway on the dais before my inner eye, and pictured it in a rather beautiful way, like some podest to honour victors. It had a special aura about itself, and I thought of it as almost festive. I don't want to prompt that heroes are being sent through this archway as a reat for their achievements. No way! But to me the whole construction, so attention-drawing to the centre, felt somehow ...proud. Not like an exposition but natural and not hiding. One could say like death itself...? I wonder whether the archway is some mysterious object like the Mrror of Erised... can it be brought somewhere, probably without the amphitheathre itself? Is there a use to/of it on the MoM's behalf? And if so, can wizards like Dumbledore 'borrow' or at least access it, perhaps for bringing sirius back, contact him, ...or could he borrow the archway but only under the premise that there would be NO attempt to do the aforementioned? I know I might have thrown up some irritating questions, or they might be just silly. But that's what I remember from my thoughts regading the chamber. : ) Have a nice day! SnapesRaven From joi_foley at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 09:04:54 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:04:54 -0000 Subject: SHIP (WAS: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: <8d.1d76625.2d434ae6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89539 BrwNeil wrote: > Not once in the entire year does Harry ask his friend whether he > still has feelings for Hermione. Also, not once does Harry ask why > Hermione didn't visit Krum. Why she wasn't with her parents. Harry > doesn't even ask if she is still writing Krum until it comes up at > Christmas. Oo! Me! Me Now! joi: One of the best pieces of advice I've seen on this list so far is this: "JKR does this type of thing through all the books. When she doesn't want to explain something she just doesn't let her characters ask questions." ~ vmonte in msg 89264 (I looked it up all by my wee self!) Seems a little wonkie to me, but I understand it. Honestly, I only care about those kinds of things when I'm desperately wishing book 6 was out already, trying to get as much HP as possible. It has always bothered me, though, that Hermione's mum and dad would let her just... go off all the time, to places they've never been. I mean, when do they see her? n.n;; BrwNeil: > I'm wondering if Rowling either switched ships or decided against > ships completely. (snipped!) Why was Luna brought into the > story? Just to give Harry a place to print his story or is she > there for either Ron or Harry? Me again! joi: >From the interviews I've read, JKR really, really doesn't care to talk about ships. For obvious reasons, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if she took out as much shippy-ness as possible, in order to set people off the ship-track. As for Luna, she's *definitely NOT* just a plot device for Harry's interview, or for some random ship. Luna has the makings of a very important character, as has been dicussed here on the list, even quite recently. She represents a lot, I think: another member of Harry's 'troupe', a lesson learned about judging people, the first member of another house besides Gryffindor to help against LV (which we know is going to be important). There's no question she's important to the story (and the fight), IMO. Those were very good+fun questions! Thanks much for posting them! joi. From joi_foley at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 09:25:49 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:25:49 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89540 Lizvega: > I don't see any problem with the word 'muggle'. There had to be a > way for JKR to distinguish between 'wizards' and 'non magic folk'. > And, not to be argumentative, but isn't it a stretch trying to > correlate "that other inflammatory word with a double-g in the > middle. And that pejorative term for male homosexual that has a > double-g in the middle..." to a word that means, > essentially, 'unable to do magic? > > Are all words with double 'g's derrogatory? How about hugger? Is > that bad? Or jogger? > > Geoff: > I'm not sure I would like to be called a boggart.... > > :-) joi: I've been thinking really hard about this. I'm a big language person (being a writing and literature major, as well as a slang geek), and I also have very strong liberal politics. At first, I thought, 'Oh, how silly! Muggle is just a word!' and I stood by that. It's a great point, from both sides, that double-g words are both bad and good. It's also interesting to think that Muggle may just be a word used to describe non-magic people, as well as a word that is used to rigidly define boundaries. This discussion is secretly always on my mind, I think, because, today, while perusing /Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them/, I took a long look at DD's foreward. He uses 'Muggle' quite a few times. Capital M, and with little remorse. But I had been into this discussion for so long, I was actually quite offended. I've decided that it's something like the word 'coloured'. There was a time, from what I understand, when the word 'coloured' was an accepted term by both blacks and whites (stop me if I'm wrong, I wasn't alive then). Through the civil rights movement, that changed, and since then, a few different terms have been used, and 'coloured' has been permanantly stuck under the carpet. Technically, it's not bad. It's just a term used to distinguish between two races of people. However, if I started calling people that, I wouldn't look so polite because it's an old word that's associated with a different time. I see 'Muggle' as a word like that. The group it represents has little say in what they're called, due to certain circumstances. But I feel like, if given the chance, we would change it, as part of a movement for better treatment and tolerance of non-magic people in the WW. I honestly don't mind Muggle, but I can see it as a term that is representative of a different time. Something else that I think about when addressing this discussion in my head is the reclaiming of certain words by the groups they are pinned on. For quite a few black people, the first double-g word is used as a greeting and a familiar name between even strangers. For quite a few gay men, the second double-g word is a jokey, almost loving sort of way to describe someone. Both of these are sometimes cases, of course, for those of you that are of either (or both) groups, and know what I'm talking about. Regardless, the argument is always that these groups can use these words because they are reclaiming them. Which, I feel, is wonderful. So, to make a long post even longer, I am reclaiming the word Muggle! :? What was once offensive to me, I shall now embrace with my whole, non-magic heart. But I also do not want to be called a 'boggart', thanks. :) joi. From irina_l_ at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 10:51:05 2004 From: irina_l_ at hotmail.com (ilubom) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:51:05 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley (and the archway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89541 shrijnana wrote: > > But what about Ginny? Why is she entranced by the veil? > Hitomi: > My only thing with your point here: we don't know if loved ones > are heard from behind the veil, we just know dead people, or > spirits, are more than likely heard behind the veil. We could just > be making something out of nothing, in that maybe Hermione and Ron > didn't look at it the same way the others did, or weren't listening, > or some trivial detail. Do I think we are? Not really, but like I > said, there's only so much speculation one can do. Maybe Ginny heard > voices because she killed chickens, I don't know (though that would > be stupid in my opinion, and wouldn't really make sense, considering > they're animals and don't talk). I don't think she saw Tom > Riddle "die," so that can't be it. Maybe those tombs in Egypt had > an affect. I've got a bit of a wild idea about Ginny and that archway. Hitomi mentioned the trip to Egypt and it sort of got me thinking about some other connections with Egypt and its mythology (eg Hermione's mention that Egyptians were amazing wizards, the sphinx in the GoF, etc). Now, the setup of the room where the archway is, as described by Harry, resembles a courtroom. If the room merely contains a doorway to the spirit world/underworld - why have that sort of a setup? What I am thinking is in Egyptian mythology, when a person dies they are "tried" before 42 judges. This trial takes place in the throne room of Osiris (a king who was killed by his brother, resurected for one day by his wife to father a son who eventually came to defeat the murderer). Those judged pure of heart would become spirits and pass into the spirit world where they could battle the chaos serpent (Egyptians had a thing about snakes). Egyptians also believed that the separation between the spirit world and the world of the living was very flimsy indeed and there are, in some writings, analogies to veils or curtains. So what if the veil/archway is the entrance to the spirit world/world of the dead and the soul of the dead person is allowed to enter it after a "trial". (Perhaps those who aren't deemed worthy to enter the spirit world remain behind as ghosts? Sirius then can't come back as a ghost because he went through into the spirit world). Harry, Luna and Neville have each seen death, a soul making the transition to the spirit world - they may be able to feel the world beyond the flimsy curtain. Ginny may not have seen death in the traditional sense, but a part of her own soul was separated from her - Riddle mentions in the second book that she was putting a bit of her (her soul?) in the diary. In fact, she put enough of her soul in it to be pretty close to death. Perhaps this is the reason that she too can feel the spirit world and is entranced by it - she almost crossed into it herself. Or perhaps, as Hitomi suggested, something in Egypt made her particularly attuned to the afterworld. It is interesting that Hermione is terrified by the archway and she has in the past demonstrated a particular fear of near-death situations (eg. in P/SS she panics in the devil's snare, in PoA she is extremely tense/panicky when they enter the Shrieking Shack). She is afraid of death and maybe she can feel its presence in that room. Ok, I think I'll stop now, thanks to those who are still awake and listening to my out of the left field ramblings. Cheers IL From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 24 11:50:19 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:50:19 -0000 Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89542 I'm sure all of these points have been brought up before, but I am currently re-reading from the beginning (how many times will I need to do that before Book 6: Estimate.) and keep discovering things to ponder. l. I am wondering whether Percy may be a victim of the middle-child symdrome. I know that he is not, in fact, a middle child, but Bill and Charlie on the one hand, and Ron, Ginny and the twins on the other seem to form two separate blocks, with Percy isolated in the middle. My own middle child had problems due to his position in the family and I think I have probably over-compensated. I am wondering if Mrs. Weasley did the same thing. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Molly over-compensate because Percy was what he was, or was Percy what he was because Molly over-compensated? (Could have been phrased more elegantly, but you know what I mean). 2. In the Quidditch chapter(Chapter 11 Page 140 UK edition PS/SS) I was struck by Hagrid's words: "Can't nothing interfere with a brookstick, except powerful Dark Magic." Notice he said "any" brookstick, not just the Nimbus Two Thousand. So any broomstick wouldn't buck unless there was a powerful hex placed on it.Would this account for Snape's problem with the brookstick on OOp (Chapter 26 "Seen and Unforeseen"?) rather than Snape's incompetance. 3. I haven't seen this answered, and I'm probably just mis-reading something, but in Chapter Twelve "The Mirror of Erised" (PS/SS) they are talking about chess: "Ron's set was vry old and battered....However, old chessmen weren't a drawback at all. Ron knew them so well he never had trouble getting them to do what he wanted. Harry played with chessmen Seamus Finnegan had lent him and they didn't trust him at all." I am puzzled as to why they were using two different sets of chessmen. Or does it mean they took turns which set to use? I'm sure there is some simple explanation, I'm just not getting it. Sylvia (sorry this is so long - I don't usually rabbit on to this extent.) From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 24 14:46:38 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:46:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? References: Message-ID: <002701c3e288$df5dc540$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89543 Hitomi wrote: Ok, I don't know about all that :) But I do actually think Snape is more than likely a pure-blood, he did refer to Lily as a "mudblood," neh? And he was in Slytherin, and they seem to be mostly pure- blood. Though there is still the possiblity Snape was just being hypocritical. Sawsan here: Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very Slytherinish : {Anne Now} But you just said it yourself: The Black Ancestry listed the pureblood families **Who intermarried**--with the Black family no less (This is the Black Family Tree after all) Although the pure bloods are running out of options, and most of them are intermarrying, or so it would seem, Sirius didn't say that ALL pureblood families have intermarried. And, since this is the Black familiy tree--the people listed on that chart would be blood related to Sirius, but not necassarily to OTHER purebloods that had not intermarried into the family. So it's still possible that the Snapes are pureblood (perhaps poor as hell, which is an impression I always got from Snape's described condition as a child--and a perfect arguement for other purebloods to not want to marry in--no money and no power in the WW world.). As for Lily's reactions to him calling her a mudblood...it could just as easily be a "I can't believe you're being that ungrateful for me sticking up for you"...or even just the "I can't beleive you used THAT word (Remember, 'Mudblood', as has been discussed recently, is a REALLY bad word--in school, how many kids did you really know went about shouting the really bad words unless they were part of a less than desirable gang...?). I know that at that age, I was still honestly shocked when one of my contemporaries would stoop to using 'really bad words' on me, enough that I backed away from them a few times.... Of course, it is possible that Snape is indeed a half-blood or a muggle-born, but we really don't have any indications of either....the only reason I suspect pure-bloodedness over the other two choices is because he joined the Death Eaters in the first place---a distinctly "Pure Blood" club...(Which brings up another arguement for why Snape may not be on the tapestry...not even all the Black related peeps are DE....and I find it hard to believe that ALL pureblood families are as a rule DE....they;re dwindling, but I don't think they;re that far gone yet....otherwise, Krum and Karkaroff should be on there too, don' you think? Anne From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Jan 24 14:56:10 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:56:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? Message-ID: <75.21314526.2d43e18a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89544 In a message dated 1/24/2004 9:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net writes: Sawsan here: Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very Slytherinish : ************************************* Sherrie here: IIRC, the Potters aren't listed, either - so was James then not a pureblood? IMHO, what we re given are the names on only a small portion of the tapestry - the Snape lineage could be farther back, or farther away, than the area on which Sirius focuses. Just because Sirius doesn't mention them, doesn't mean they're not there. My two Knuts - as ever, Your Mileage My Vary. Sherrie (still suffering from Opening Night Syndrome) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 15:08:39 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:08:39 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > > Can anyone tell me if there's any referance to the public, or even > the students at Hogwarts finding out the Barty was masquerading as > Moody? In Chap. 25, The Daily Prophet article reporting the Azkaban prison break refers to Sirius Black as the "only" previous escapee. This indicates that the story of BC Jr. never became public. - CMC From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 15:11:46 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:11:46 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shrijnana" wrote: > I've had a few questions about Ginny Weasley... maybe they've been > discussed here before; if so maybe someone less new to the group can > point me to the relevant posts. I think there's even more to Ginny > than meets the eye, even more that the powerful witch an quiddich > player she's growing into being. > > First, in POA she is deeply affected by the dementors on the train to > Hogwarts, as is Neville. At first I thought that might be due to her > experience with Tom Riddle in COS, but after reading OotP I'm not so > sure. She tells Harry that she cannot remember the times she was > possesed by LV at all. "When he did it to me I couldn't remember what > I'd been doing for hours at a time. (pg. 500 US edition). Would the > dementors be able to bring up those unconscious memories? Now Ginger: To be honest, I think Ginny is lying, or at least hedging, when she says she doesn't remember. I don't mean that as a moral judgement, although Ginny has shown that she can lie unblushingly. (The dungbombs at the kitchen door at #12 come to mind.) Whatever happened in CoS was probably more traumatic than what has been revealed. I have to wonder what a 16 year old boy with *total control* of a young girl might do to her during the lulls between petrifications, the rooster killings, etc. Even though he couldn't leave the diary, he could have brought her into it as he did Harry. I don't think anything like I am thinking would be stated outright in a book that young children are reading. It may just be between the lines. In such a case, her memory loss may be due to a charm, due to trauma (as happens in the RW), or she may be lying to avoid further questions. Again, not a moral judgement, but rather, self preservation on her part. Ginny and Neville both came out strong in this book. I have to think that Neville found his strength in 1) realizing that he had tea with his parents' torturer (BC, Jr/Moody), 2) The remaining torturers escaping Azkaban, and 3)the return of LV. His "safe" world where the worst thing he had to fear was Snape is gone. There is now a need for self defense and retribution, not in the vigilante sense, but in the need for those who have harmed his loved ones to be brought foreward and called to account for their actions. Ginny may have had a like moment. The one who held her mental hostage and forced her to do his bidding is now on the loose. While in one sense, LV and Diary!Tom are two different entities, they are nonetheless the same person. Diary!Tom is gone for good, but LV is back. I would wager that in the end, she has some righteous fury that may come into play in a battle against LV. And, yes, I think you are right that the Dementors may have brought back some of these memories, either by bringing them from beyond her former ability to remember or by forcing her to think about things she had been trying to forget. I snipped the last part of the original as others have had worthy things to say and I'd only be repeating :) Ginger, who likes Ginny very much, maybe because, like a good Martini, we both start with Gin. Although, I think I'm more easily shaken, she's more easily stirred. From CoyotesChild at charter.net Sat Jan 24 15:35:40 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:35:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e28f$bcf55020$18667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89547 > From: Caius Marcius > > In Chap. 25, The Daily Prophet article reporting the Azkaban prison > break refers to Sirius Black as the "only" previous escapee. This > indicates that the story of BC Jr. never became public. > > - CMC > Iggy here: There's also the facts that Fudge would keep the escape of Crouch Jr. a secret, and he didn't believe (through most of the 5th book even) that Voldemort had come back, so he would have no reason to let them keep Barty to make the potion with. Also, remember that Snape had been a spy *long* before Gof. Snape is a master of Occlumency which, as he pointed out, allows one to hide their true motives and emotions as well as keeping people out of their minds. This aspect would render Voldemort's ability to detect if Snape is lying null and void (as has also been pointed out in how lies are detected by Legilimency). So, Snape actually being in covert contact with Voldemort is just as viable as him getting his information through someone like Lucius. It is even more likely, as whoever was Snape's contact would have to be a master of Occlumency as well... which would make Snape being able to verify the truth of the information very difficult. IMHO, the most viable theory is that Snape is somehow in contact with Voldemort, who thinks Snape is his double agent, but doesn't know that Snape actually truly works for Dumbledore. (Snape working for Dumbledore is supported by the fact that he *did* report Black's situation and such to Dumbledore as well as, IIRC, helping to interrogate Kreacher. If he had not done so, then there would have been a much better chance of Voldemort getting his hands on the prophecy. Snape could have kept the information to himself, let Voldemort get his hands on the prophecy, and not revealed his inaction... while still remaining free and clear of suspicion. In other words, he would have had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, if he really was working for Voldemort, by just keeping his mouth shut.) Just my two centaurs worth... Iggy McSnurd From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 15:43:13 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:43:13 -0000 Subject: Why it was necessary: the HP/N,F,AL/SB/BL connection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89548 The initials in the subject line are Harry Potter (but you knew that), Neville, Frank, Alice Longbottom, Sirius Black, and Bellatrix Lestrange. Couldn't exactly fit that all in that short space, now could I? On to the theory! Why is it necessary? That question has pervaded many threads on this list, most recently the "is too"/"is not" Snape is (not) a vampire thread. The request for "why it was necessary" got me thinking about why other things in the book were necessary. I went mentally back to TBAY, pre-OoP, to the 4th man theories. All the theories had it as a given that BC,Jr. was one of the Penveive Four (canon) and that Mr and Mrs Lestrange (first names still unknown) were the 2nd and 3rd (speculation at that point). Fortunately, no one asked us *why* it had to be the Lestranges. Our only evidence, and I use that word loosely, was that Mrs Lestrange was the only mentioned female DE, that the Lestranges were in Azkaban, and that if Mrs was there, Mr must be too. Ah, how sexist we were in our innocence. Of course, in OoP, we were proven right about the married couple, although beyond left field on the fourth man. So why was it necessary that we know their identities? Why, as many have asked, did Sirius have to die? Here's my theory: Harry and Neville need to become closer than before. For some reason, perhaps the Prophecy, they will need to be at each other's side more than ever. The connection is Bellatrix. She tortured Frank and Alice. She killed Sirius. She has cost both boys the love of the people closest to them. She has caused them great pain. Notice how this has already effected their relationship. In GoF, Harry feels sorry for Neville, and starts to see him in a different light after he sees the penseive, and again in OoP when they meet at St. Mungo's. Neville shows genuine concern for Harry after Sirius dies, crawling down the bleachers despite his cursed legs to offer condolences. Now that they have this common bond, and are free to talk about it, I feel that they will become closer and better unified to fight not only Bellatrix, but her master as well. Bellatrix is the catalyst. And that's why I think it was all necessary. Fire away! Ginger From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 16:17:35 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:17:35 -0000 Subject: Filk: Cool Brother Bill Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89549 "Cool Brother Bill" to "Fool on the Hill" by the Beatles. Dedicated to Gail. World Quidditch Cup. The ultimate thrill. And Harry is meeting Ron's big brothers Charlie and Bill. When Harry tried to define him, There's just no other word but "cool", And Molly tries to refine him, But the Cool Brother Bill Wears his hair hanging down, And a turn of his head Sends his fang spinning 'round. Tri-Wizard Champ. The Weasleys delight. The girl who's a quarter Veela has got Bill in her sight. But he doesn't seem effected By the charm that she sends his way. No, he doesn't seem to notice But the Cool Brother Bill Wears his hair hanging down, And a turn of his head Sends his fang spinning 'round. Back at the bank in England He's a new Order member too. Now can he recruit the Goblins? And the Cool Brother Bill Wears his hair hanging down, And a turn of his head Sends his fang spinning 'round. From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 24 16:27:37 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:27:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP (WAS: Ginny Weasley References: <8d.1d76625.2d434ae6@aol.com> Message-ID: <001101c3e296$fad041f0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 89550 Neil said: > I'm wondering if Rowling either switched ships or decided against ships > completely. Could outside sources have convinced her to go H/H instead of R/H. > Could WB be influencing some of her book decisions. Why was Luna brought into > the story? Just to give Harry a place to print his story or is she there for > either Ron or Harry? Joj says: Would JKR really switch ships at this point? Maybe with a smaller ship like Neville/Ginny, who I'm rooting for too, btw. I don't think she would within the trio. I think, if she's going to do something with either H/H or R/H in the next two books, and not just in an epilogue, it will serve the overall plot. I'm not sure we'll see a full fledged relationship, but feelings being hurt and feelings complicating things. I don't think things will go smoothly, that for sure. That's why I think there will be some sort of R/H/H triangle. Oh, the angst! > I'm betting H/Hr, R/L, N/G. I wonder how many years before the answer? That's what I'm betting too. I think Luna would be real good for Ron. Joj, who doesn't think JKR would consider changing anything in her books for WB. From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 16:46:03 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:46:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89551 Hitomi: > >... Ginny and... I also think we'll see more of her because of Quidditch, >what with the only old member on >the team being Harry, so he'll probably >end up Quidditch Captain. Fred and George are gone, and >Angelina, Alicia, >and Katie just graduated. So, if Ginny is a Chaser, maybe Harry will get >to know her >better (good point for H/G shippers, anyway). Aesha: > Well, I can't get the website to let me look at the posts, and I'm on >digest, so this may have been answered already. But I think there's been >speculation as to whether Katie *is* actually leaving Hogwarts in book 5. >Ginny only mentions that Alicia and Angelina are leaving, she doesn't >mention Katie. Julie's thoughts -- For some reason, I had been under the impression that Katie Bell graduated prior to Angelina and Alicia. I was trying to look up on the Harry Potter Lexicon for more background on that, but the site seems to be down in places. Who else has any citations on this? Aesha: >Anyway, I'm hoping Ron will be captain. It would fit so nicely with what he >saw in the Mirror. Ooh, wait... he just saw that he was head boy and >holding the Quidditch cup, not Captain? Here's what Ron saw in the mirror, quoted from HP&SS (Hardback American Edition) chapter 12, p211: "I'm alone -- but I'm different -- I look older -- and I'm head boy!" ... "I'm wearing the badge like Bill used to -- and I'm holding the house cup and the Quidditch cup -- I'm quidditch captain too!" So yup, in his mirror vision Ron got the whole sack of beans, when it comes to achievement at Hogwarts. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From entropymail at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 17:33:27 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:33:27 -0000 Subject: Why it was necessary: the HP/N,F,AL/SB/BL connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: <> Why, as many have asked, did Sirius have to die? > Here's my theory: Harry and Neville need to become closer than > before. For some reason, perhaps the Prophecy, they will need to be > at each other's side more than ever. The connection is Bellatrix. > She tortured Frank and Alice. She killed Sirius. She has cost both > boys the love of the people closest to them. She has caused them > great pain. > Now that they have this common bond, and are free to talk about it, I > feel that they will become closer and better unified to fight not > only Bellatrix, but her master as well. Bellatrix is the catalyst. > > And that's why I think it was all necessary. > > Fire away! Ginger I think this theory makes a lot of sense. My problem with Sirius all along has not been so much "why did he have to die?" but, rather "why did he have to be?" What I mean by this is, although his presence played an important role in the theme of Book 3, it was fairly needless in Books 4 and 5. Other than being little more than a shadow for Harry to pin much of his future hopes and wishes on, Sirius's character was never developed in any satisfactory way. Much of the things he was used for (substitute father figure, link to James) could have been written into other characters who were already in Harry's life (Dumbledore, or Lupin, perhaps). Sirius never really developed into a three-dimensional character for me, and it quite irked me that JKR wasted three books' worth of time just to have him die without really fleshing him out. However, your theory really makes some sense. It puts things in a different perspective, which brings me back to my original question: "why did he have to be?". The answer is, "he had to be, so that he could die." And, as you have written, the reason for his death may be to solidify the bond between Harry and Neville. Good work. :: Entropy :: From amani at charter.net Sat Jan 24 17:36:31 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:36:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess References: Message-ID: <003101c3e2a0$9b8d9da0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89553 Sylvia: I'm sure all of these points have been brought up before, but I am currently re-reading from the beginning (how many times will I need to do that before Book 6: Estimate.) and keep discovering things to ponder. 2. In the Quidditch chapter(Chapter 11 Page 140 UK edition PS/SS) I was struck by Hagrid's words: "Can't nothing interfere with a brookstick, except powerful Dark Magic." Notice he said "any" brookstick, not just the Nimbus Two Thousand. So any broomstick wouldn't buck unless there was a powerful hex placed on it.Would this account for Snape's problem with the brookstick on OOp (Chapter 26 "Seen and Unforeseen"?) rather than Snape's incompetance. Taryn: But remember, there are people we've come across who just don't have that natural ability on a broomstick. The reason it was obvious that there was something seriously wrong with Harry's was because he IS a natural and he's NEVER had trouble with a broomstick before. Snape, on the other hand, might just be a really bad flyer. Sylvia: 3. I haven't seen this answered, and I'm probably just mis-reading something, but in Chapter Twelve "The Mirror of Erised" (PS/SS) they are talking about chess: "Ron's set was vry old and battered....However, old chessmen weren't a drawback at all. Ron knew them so well he never had trouble getting them to do what he wanted. Harry played with chessmen Seamus Finnegan had lent him and they didn't trust him at all." I am puzzled as to why they were using two different sets of chessmen. Or does it mean they took turns which set to use? I'm sure there is some simple explanation, I'm just not getting it. Taryn: *ponders this* Maybe in Wizard's chess you only own one side, since your pieces moving how you want depend on you earning their trust. So it would make sense for each side in a game to own their own pieces. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shoelessgirl at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 11:56:12 2004 From: shoelessgirl at hotmail.com (shoelesskiwi) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:56:12 -0000 Subject: Fred and George abilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89554 > Sue B: > > I see there has been a post about Fred and George and leaving > school, > > They failed a lot of OWLs because they couldn't be bothered > > (as Mrs Weasley recognises) not because they were no good. No > > wonder their Mum is frustrated!:-) > Whizbang > I thought they did well in school and in their OWLS? I'm pretty sure it said they got three each, although they whichever twin said that may have been joking (not at all unlikely) shoelesskiwi From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 14:36:02 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:36:02 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89555 Whizbang wrote: > > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's > > right hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort > >didn't want to kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's > > somehow manipulated time to come back and save his family. > daw: > ...only to get beaten up by his own grandson. > It is kinda a neat idea, though...so who does Mark Evans the > 10-year-old live with in Little Whinging? Good question. Hmmmmm..... Maybe he doesn't live there. Maybe he was there looking for his future family, Harry particularly. He was beaten up on Harry's birthday. If he's a muggle as we've been led to believe, he'll have to be knowledgable of the magical world and someone else will have to have sent him through time. But we don't really know what happened to Harry's grandparents. In the mirror of Erised, he thinks he recognises a grandfather, though. Interesting. Whizbang From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 19:25:13 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:25:13 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89556 Over on OTC, we've been playing a game of inventing future HP titles. It was quickly determined that "Harry Potter and the . . . " is all but required, which clicked with a late-night idea in my head. I've long thought that the "Harry Potter and the . . . " formula was kind of feeble. IMO, the titles would be more poetic and less childish if they were called, simply, "The Philosopher's Stone," "The Chamber of Secrets," etc.--or perhaps the first "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," and then just "The Chamber of Secrets," "The Prisoner of Azkaban," etc. I think of other series I've loved. What if, instead of "The White Mountains," etc., John Christopher had called his novels "Will and the White Mountains," "Will and the City of Gold and Lead," and "Will and the Pool of Fire"? Ick! What if Laura Ingalls Wilder had insisted on cramming "Little House" into the title of every book, instead of just the appropriate first two? "Little House on the Farm," "Little House on the Banks of Plum Creek," etc. Double ick! In the past, I've figured there were two possible reasons for JKR's (again IMO) dull titles. One is that JKR's ear for language is simply not at its best (=in keeping with my own) when it comes to titles. The other is that she's aware that the titles are a bit monotonous, but Harry IS, after all, the linchpin of recent wizarding- world history. Thus, once in a while, when someone here deems that a theory mistakenly puts another character besides Harry at the center of the series, he/she will bolster his/her argument by pointing out, "There's a reason the books are called "Harry Potter and the...'" Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book Seven: that Harry is not after all the center of the series? That the whole story has been about the development of that other July- born son of Order parents? Why would JKR even introduce the idea that it could have been Neville, as she's just done in OoP, if it isn't going to mean something? What if everyone's wrong and it really is Neville who must and will defeat the Dark Lord?* The ultimate way to symbolize that would be to name the book after the true center of the story. The problem is, the new title would signal the twist. If Book Seven is called Neville Longbottom and the Final Secret or whatnot, well, the secret would be out before we opened the book. I did say it was a late-night idea. But I like the way it redeems an aspect of the series I've always considered to be rather weak. Amy Z *Someone must've raised this theory by now, for which I apologize. I have barely read the list since the release of OoP and have no hope of ever catching up, though I've considered making it a project for my next sabbatical. From punkieshazam at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 20:18:53 2004 From: punkieshazam at yahoo.com (punkieshazam) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:18:53 -0000 Subject: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "makemeatree" wrote: > snip....it's an old word that's associated with a different > time. > > I see 'Muggle' as a word like that. The group it represents has > little say in what they're called, due to certain circumstances. > Regardless, the argument is > always that these groups can use these words because they are > reclaiming them. Which, I feel, is wonderful. > > So, to make a long post even longer, I am reclaiming the word > Muggle! :? What was once offensive to me, I shall now embrace with my > whole, non-magic heart. But I also do not want to be called > a 'boggart', thanks. :) > > joi. Punkie Also to go waaaay back, there was once another author--Nancy something or other--who tried to get the courts to make it hers alone. We need to claim it with a vengence. Punkie Petunia is probably not a squib, but a witch in denial. From fredwaldrop at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 20:53:48 2004 From: fredwaldrop at yahoo.com (Fred Waldrop) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:53:48 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89558 "cubs99111" wrote: Similarly I have a probelm with the prophecy in OOP. If Dumbledore knew it already and they didn't want Voldemort to get it than instead of guarding it, they should have just sent someone in there to knock it off the wall with a spell and break it and then they would never have to worry about Voldemort getting it. JR ===================================================================== Hello everyone, Fred Waldrop here; Has anyone else thought that HRH were wrong about Sturgis Podmore, and why he was sent to Azkaban for 6 months. (page 258 OotP UK) Maybe he was sent into the DoM to destroy the Orb, but like DD, LV was watching also, and had his DE alert the right people at the right time to stop Podmore. Until we find out more, we really do not know why Podmore was trying to enter the DoM. Fred Waldrop From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 24 21:35:46 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:35:46 -0500 Subject: Creevey brothers Message-ID: <000701c3e2c2$072f77b0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 89559 I've been wondering what the point of the Creevey brothers is, especially Dennis. The thought occurred to me that maybe it's to show that it's not uncommon for two muggle siblings to be magical. Could this be a hint towards Petunia being a witch? Joj From ktd7 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 22:26:11 2004 From: ktd7 at yahoo.com (Karen) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:26:11 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > Bridget wrote: > > I have A theory about why Voldy doesn't suspect Snape after the > > Voldy/Quirrell Stuff: Snape didn't or at least wasn't supposed to > > know that Voldemort was the reason Quirrell was trying to steal > > the Stone and kill Harry. He obviously knew Quirrell was a bad guy > > and tried to stop him, but that doesn't mean he knew Voldy was > > involved. > > Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember there being anything > > saying that Snape knew about Voldemort. Although I do think Snape > > is incredibly intelligent and may have figured out what was going > > on, I don't believe he let on to know about Voldy if he did know. > > > > Hitomi: > No, Bridget you're absolutely right. (Or, at least, I think you > are, I don't have Book 1 with me ::sheepish grin::) We DON'T know > that Snape knew it was LV, just as we don't know that LV knew if > Snape knew it was him or not (oy! that sounds really confusing). I > was assuming too much; thanks for pointing that out. My only thing, > LV being LV, it would still surprise me if he didn't, at the very > least, suspect Snape of betrayal. Like I said, I think Snape treads > a very fine line, and is playing very dangerously. And though he > may be trustworthy, he never exactly shows all his cards, so Snape > makes me just a little bit... anxious, I guess is the word I'm > looking for. But thereto, Snape is also a practiced Occlumens, just > as LV knows Legilimency. Snape may be able to lie convincingly in > front of LV, though I would be surprised if LV didn't know Snape > practiced Occlumency. DD always seems to know just about > everything, and LV is kind of the same way. We don't know enough > about Snape or the situation, but it does make me think. > This brings up an interesting point... I'm not sure I'm thinking of this exactly in the same way. Snape tried to save Harry because he knew that someone had enchanged his broom to throw him off. Snape was doing a counter charm. That does not necessarily mean that Snape knew who performed the initial curse. However, in Harry's final showdown with Quirrel/Voldemort, Quirrel/Voldemort tells Harry that Snape had tried to save him. This produces a couple of questions. *First, did Q/V just assume that Snape was saving a student and not actively working against him? *Second, would Q/V have considered Snape no longer a follower since he was working against him, whether consciously or unconciously? Snape had the interesting conversation with Quirrel outside the Library wanting to know where his loyalties were. Knowing what we now know, we assume that Snape was warning Quirrel not to be working for Voldemort. However, if that is true, Quirrel/Voldemort would now know that Snape is working against him. Snape would be no good as a "double agent". If Snape was warning Quirrel to not go against the Dark Lord, then Snape was and is playing a triple agent game, and cannot be trusted at all. I'm not jumping on the "Evil Snape" bandwagon, but he cannot be infiltrating Voldemort's camp without Voldemort knowing that he is spying for Dumbledore. Either Snape's OotP activies are of a different nature, or he doesn't know that Voldemort is on to him, or else he is actually working for Lord Thingy. Karen From nydede9 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 15:32:05 2004 From: nydede9 at yahoo.com (Deanna Benfante) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:32:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? In-Reply-To: <75.21314526.2d43e18a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040124153205.77656.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89561 Sherrie here: > IIRC, the Potters aren't listed, either - so was James then not a pureblood? IMHO, what we re given are the names on only a small portion of the tapestry - the Snape lineage could be farther back, or farther away, than the area on which Sirius focuses. Just because Sirius doesn't mention them, doesn't mean they're not there. >>> Hi, I'm new to this site and IN LOVE with everything HP. You call yourself Madame Snape. Is that because you 'love' the character Snape? Just interested because, if so, you have a rival - ME. By the way - at the end of one of HP and the Chamber of Secrets, who is that very thin woman sitting next to Snape with the 'sharp' nose and the 'slightly' Goth outfit? Is that supposed to be his wife? Deanna Prof. McGonagal From dh.shrijnana at verizon.net Sat Jan 24 20:04:54 2004 From: dh.shrijnana at verizon.net (shrijnana) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:04:54 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89562 Hitomi wrote: > There's only so much speculation we can do, Ginny was never an > overly important figure until the latest book (discluding her > involvement in Book 2, but she can't remember that), and there is > quite a lot we still don't know about her. Mostly, I guess, we'll > have to wait and see, I totally agree... there's certain things JKR doesn't want us to know yet. It's hard not to speculate though while being so impatient for book 6. But after reading replies to my questions I've thought of another possibility why Ginny is entranced by the veil. Lets her experiences with Tom Riddle in COS are enough to cause her to have a strong reaction to the dementors - which they very well could be, Tom describes her crying and being very scared when he took her into the chamber, she must remember that! Maybe her being entranced by the veil has something to do with the nature of Tom Marvolo/LV and the changes TM went through to become LV. But again, speculation will only take us so far. That's why I'm interested in her name; it might be a clue to her role. - Shrijnana From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 22:41:44 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:41:44 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > once in a while, when someone here deems that a > theory mistakenly puts another character besides Harry at the center > of the series, he/she will bolster his/her argument by pointing > out, "There's a reason the books are called "Harry Potter and the...'" > > Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book > Seven: that Harry is not after all the center of the series? That > the whole story has been about the development of that other July- > born son of Order parents? I've been wondering about this since reading Mark Twain's _The Tragedy of Puddin'head Wilson_ the other night, as it was cited as a 'two' clue from JKR by Galadriel Waters in her latest _New Clues to HP5 book._ In the story, two boys, TOM and CHAMBER, are born on the same day, and after some months, switched and grow up with everyone thinking that one is the heir and brought up that way, and the other lowly, until one day when they are grown and the secret is revealed. (There is also a tie-in with T.S. Eliot's poem about the murder of Thomas Becket, because the Tom in this story is named Thomas Becket as his first and middle names, and this second clue is referenced later with mention of the cathedral club where Stubby Boardman was hit in the ear 15 years ago with a turnip (dual meaning: watch).) It gets complicated thinking all this. You can look these works up on the web if curious... Betta smaragdina From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Sat Jan 24 20:16:31 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:16:31 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89564 lizvega2 wrote: > I've always wondered how exactly Snape was spying on Voldemort when > we know that he has the capability of knowing when someone is lying > to him. I came across an interesting theory: Snape is using > polyjuice potion containing Barty Crouch jr.'s hair. The proof: > > Barty wasn't killed. He was given the dementor's kiss. Victims of > the kiss are still alive, but comatose. His hair would still be > usable. > > Voldemort doesn't know what happened to Barty Crouch, jr. The last > thing he knew was Harry touched the Portkey, and was gone from the > graveyard. Snape left the hospital ward, 'prepared' a little while > later, to do what? If he was going to spy, which the above quote in > my estimation confirms this, wouldn't it be easier to return to > Voldemort as Barty jr., than Snape? > > Barty, who did everything VL told him to, including getting Harry > through the Tri-Wizard Tournament, no easy feat by his own > admission. VL referred to Barty as his faithful servant, he probably > wouldn't be probing the feelings of Barty as heavily as Snape. > > Can anyone tell me if there's any referance to the public, or even > the students at Hogwarts finding out the Barty was masquerading as > Moody? Honey: This is a brilliant theory. It completely explains Snape's unquestioned presence in LV's inner circle. Although canon suggests that the public (at least the Daily Prophet) is not aware of the Moody/Crouch Jr. masquerade, the Hogwarts students seem to be aware. In Umbridge's first class, Dean Thomas refers to Fake Moody thusly: 'Hermione put up her hand; Professor Umbridge turned away from her. "It is my understanding that my predecessor not only performed illegal curses in front of you, he actually performed them *on* you --" "Well, he turned out to be a maniac, didn't he?" said Dean Thomas hotly.' I don't think that it is necessary for the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory that Crouch's masquerade be a secret. Even if everyone knows that Crouch escaped from Azkaban and spent a year pretending to be Moody, it only matters for the theory to work that *LV* not know about the Dementor's Kiss, and there is no evidence that the Kiss is public knowledge. The students might speculate about what happened to him after the scene at the Third Task, but since the Kiss was unwitnessed, it most likely is only speculation. If Snape had showed up at DE headquarters shortly after the scene in the graveyard, in disguise as Crouch Jr., there would be no reason for LV to believe rumors (if he heard any from, say, Draco Malfoy via Lucius) that Crouch was Kissed. The Double Agent Snape Theory, in my opinion, is also very convincing and consistent with canon. I like the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory better because it fits so well with the way JKR tends to introduce a perfectly plausible plot device or character, seems to be done with it, and then it pops up again in a way that makes us say, "I should have seen that coming a mile away." Using the Polyjuice Potion yet again in this way would fit that pattern. Just a thought. I'm ready to be convinced of *nearly* anything except Vampire Snape. (Oops-put my foot in it.) Honey From helen at odegard.com Sat Jan 24 22:46:19 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:46:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP (WAS: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: <001101c3e296$fad041f0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> Message-ID: <000001c3e2cb$e332edb0$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89565 Neil said: > I'm wondering if Rowling either switched ships or decided against ships > completely.? Could outside sources have convinced her to go H/H instead of R/H. > Could WB be influencing some of her book decisions.?? Why was Luna brought into > the story?? Just to give Harry a place to print his story or is she there for > either Ron or Harry? Joj says: Would JKR really switch ships at this point?? Maybe with a smaller ship like Neville/Ginny, who I'm rooting for too, btw.? I don't think she would within the trio.? I think, if she's going to do something with either H/H or R/H in the next two books, and not just in an epilogue, it will serve the overall plot.? I'm not sure we'll see a full fledged relationship, but feelings being hurt and feelings complicating things.? I don't think things will go smoothly, that for sure.? That's why I think there will be some sort of R/H/H triangle.? Oh, the angst! > I'm betting H/Hr, R/L, N/G.? I wonder how many years before the answer? That's what I'm betting too.? I think Luna would be real good for Ron. Joj, who doesn't think JKR would consider changing anything in her books for WB. Helen (LizardLaugh): I don't think JKR would change her mind because of the movies (unless it is something small, like the mention of the scarves in OotP), but I could see her changing her mind on the romances so long as it didn't have major plot ramifications. I like Neville/Ginny too (much more so than Harry/Ginny), and I could see her going either way on R/Hr vs. H/Hr, though my bets are on R/Hr at the moment, mainly because I suspect there is something very important to the plot that makes R/Hr unavoidable. That said, I can totally see a triangle (in fact, I am betting on it). A HRH triangle would be some monstrous angst, and it is that one final thing that will tear the trio apart before coming together in the end. She has torn them apart in every single book in some way, and this would be the obvious way to do so now, given their ages. It would also provide an impetus for Harry to branch out and make new friends, which he desperately needs to do. I can totally see her changing her mind on, say, H/G for instance (if she originally intended that) and shipping Harry off with someone else or no one at all. I suspect that Luna was an unplanned addition, based on something she said in the Albert Hall interview. I wouldn't mind Luna with Ron or Harry or Neville, and I definitely prefer H/Lu to H/G (which is beginning to strike me as Harry/Ron-with-breasts, most especially if Ron becomes Dumbledore). JKR has said she can change her mind, and I believe her. I know I've done the same thing in my own original fiction as well as fanfiction, and I am someone who plans EVERYTHING out in advance. There are certain things she simply can't change her mind on because she's already set up all of the clues and it is too important to the main plot structure (for instance, Ron=DD if that is the case). However, smaller things, minor characters, romances, magical artifacts, etc. that don't undermine the main plot -- she can totally change her mind on. I think killing Harry (please, please, NO!!!) is something she can change her mind on as well because it will happen at the very end. Helen From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 20:22:27 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:22:27 -0000 Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess In-Reply-To: <003101c3e2a0$9b8d9da0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89566 > Taryn: > *ponders this* Maybe in Wizard's chess you only own one side, since your pieces moving how you want depend on you earning their trust. So it would make sense for each side in a game to own their own pieces. >>> Perhaps the chessmen are like Pokimon cards or something of that type. The board is neutral, but each person has different chessmen that they buy/collect etc. Andrew From dms31865 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 21:26:38 2004 From: dms31865 at yahoo.com (dms31865) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:26:38 -0000 Subject: ????? Relativity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89567 Could Crookshanks be Harry's grandfather? Just trying to decifer if Dumbledore could be related, too, for he had the invisiblilty cloak. Thanks for letting me post my first one. "dms31865" From dh.shrijnana at verizon.net Sat Jan 24 22:01:29 2004 From: dh.shrijnana at verizon.net (shrijnana) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:01:29 -0000 Subject: Creevey brothers & Petunia In-Reply-To: <000701c3e2c2$072f77b0$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89568 Joj wrote: > I've been wondering what the point of the Creevey brothers is, especially Dennis. The thought occurred to me that maybe it's to show that it's not uncommon for two muggle siblings to be magical. Could this be a hint towards Petunia being a witch? >>> Thanks for bringing this up, Joj, I've been wondering about the Creeveys, too. We know very little about them except they are from a muggle family and worship Harry. Your idea is a good one, and it makes sense. I've wondered about Petunia's witch status, too. When Petunia talks about the dementors in OotP, she talks about them in the present tense. "They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban." (pg. 31, US). It made me wonder if she has current information about the wizarding world. Her explanation that she overheard James telling Lily about it seemed suspect. Does anyone know if the dementors guarded Azkaban when LV was still powerful? It seems unlikely to me given how quickly they let the DE's out once LV was out. - Shrijnana From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 22:21:25 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:21:25 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89569 Fred Waldrop: > Has anyone else thought that HRH were wrong about Sturgis Podmore, > and why he was sent to Azkaban for 6 months. (page 258 OotP UK) > Maybe he was sent into the DoM to destroy the Orb, but like DD, LV > was watching also, and had his DE alert the right people at the > right time to stop Podmore. > Until we find out more, we really do not know why Podmore was > trying to enter the DoM. What I don't understand is why the Order would guard it at all. The only one besides Harry who can remove it is Voldy himself. So let the DE's try. What could happen? But if Voldy did decide to go get it himself, which of them could stop him? Harry and DD seem to be the only possibilities. Guarding Harry would have made more sense. Maybe that's why, the night Harry and Co went to "rescue" Sirius, no one was on guard duty. There was just no purpose to it. Whizbang From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 22:34:26 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:34:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How's Snape Doing it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89570 lizvega2: > "...It is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. .... "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job. Now, if you are ready, we will start again..." I've always wondered how exactly Snape was spying on Voldemort when we know that he has the capability of knowing when someone is lying to him. >>>> Kathy: If Snape is a vampire couldn't he just change into a bat? Bats do have exceptional hearing. Just a thought. Kathy From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 24 23:51:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:51:12 -0000 Subject: Stockwell Orphanage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: Carolyn: > So ! The investigation continues ! However, I think that at some > point we have to ask ourselves whether JKR did any of the digging > that we have, and if so, to what purpose.. is there a clue there for > us to find or not ? > > Did she deliberately find a road that used to be called something > else just to conclusively link Tom Riddle to the Stockwell orphanage > or not ? > > And if he was at the orphanage, we still don't have any idea why, > when it really seems to be an awful long way from Little Hangleton. > > Methinks, since it was an important Baptist orphanage, you should set > up a sneaky church research project, Geoff, and get lots of your > fellow brethren engaged in looking through dusty files from the 1920s > and 1930s, to see if there was some surprising project to bring > children from all over the UK to London at that time. An > international research project, tell them, with interested supporters > all over the world . Well.. we have to find out somehow .. and > they might enjoy it ! Geoff (in 89499): Digressing for a moment to Carolyn's comments in 89406, I hope to try to obtain a little bit more information on the question of the orphanage over the weekend. One of our church members was on the staff at Spurgeon's College for many years and has already helped me with one or two points, so I shall do some more arm-twisting! Watch out, Tom, we're on your tail again. :-) Geoff again: By coincidence, I met the church member I wanted to see town this morning and was able to raise th matter with her. As a result of my reading of the situation is this. I have explained in a previous post some weeks ago that Chalres Haddon Spurgeon was one of the greatest Baptist ministers in our history - certainly for his time. His name still lives on in the name of his church at the Elephant & Castle - Spurgeon's Tabernacle. He felt a call from God to address the needs of orphans and the Stockwell Orphanage was opened in 1869 to cater for 250 boys - the girls' accommodation following in 1879. Obviously,Spurgeon's first concern was for the children of the London area. If you track down the 1881 census figures,as Shaun and I did independently, most of the scholars listed are from the London area. Remember that, prior to the formation of the London County Council, many areas which are now part of Greater London would be listed under their old counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex and possibly Hertfordshire which had their boundaries pushed out, first by the LCC by its formation in 1887 and further by the formation of the Greater London council in 1965. However, there are a number of pupils in ths list who come from towns and villages far outside the London area. Why? My enquiries of my contact elicited the fact that there was only one Orphanage set up by the Baptist church; it still exists today as part of the Spurgeon's Child Care group. So, it would be quite likely that a Baptist family with an orphan on their hands would eschew a secular institution - with the reputation that some of them had obtained via Charles Dickens for example - and might go for their denominational Orphanage in London. Possibly therefore, Tom Riddle Senior was a Baptist (though his behaviour suggests that he was a bad one!) and so TR Junior finished up there. However, a second possbility is that, having been abandoned, Tom's mothe went to relatives who organised her while she approached her labour - in a hospital either locally or in London and that Tom went to Stockwell after his mothers' death. Plenty to chew on over this! From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Sat Jan 24 23:57:44 2004 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (Tracy Hunt) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:57:44 -0000 Subject: Restoring the Fat Lady Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89572 (insert standard disclaimers (couldn't find it during an archives search, don't remember it being discussed recently, sorry if it was and I missed it, etc.)) During a recent re-read of PoA I found the following statement by Dumbledore (US hardcover page 165, Grim Defeat): (in response to Percy's question about the status of the missing Fat Lady) "She's still very distressed, but once she's calmed down, I'll have Mr. Filch restore her." Now here's the question(s): How is this done? If the paintings are magical, wouldn't it require magic to repair them? If so, how is this done by a squib? This is probably one of those many, many questions in the Potterverse I'll never have an answer to...but I thougth I'd throw it out there in case anyone else has an idea. Tcy (who, after read number -- oh, I don't remember but it's more than 10- - *still* won't allow for ESE!Lupin--nope, I don't buy it and you can't make me!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 25 00:13:55 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:13:55 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Fred Waldrop" wrote:p here; > > Has anyone else thought that HRH were wrong about Sturgis Podmore, and why he was sent to Azkaban for 6 months. (page 258 OotP UK) Maybe he was sent into the DoM to destroy the Orb, but like DD, LV was watching also, and had his DE alert the right people at the right time to stop Podmore. > Until we find out more, we really do not know why Podmore was trying to enter the DoM. > There is one clue which many have missed, including HRH themselves. The surge of happiness Harry felt when he was in Umbridge's office coincided with Podmore's sentencing. This argues very strongly that Sturgis was loyal to Dumbledore. Podmore cannot have been framed by the Ministry, since they would have let the Prophet know if they'd suspected he was one of Dumbledore's people. Therefore, he must have been set up by Voldemort . Of course all this happens *before* Kreacher defected, proving there is indeed a traitor in the Order. Moody says, on page 182 US that Podmore had failed to show up for the second time in a week. I think the first failure was because he had been captured by LV's forces, put under Imperius and commanded to steal the Orb, just as Bode was. I have thought of another reason Dumbledore couldn't break in to the Department of Mysteries to destroy the Orb. He could not have broken through the protections undetected. Harry's dreams do not take him past the doorway because, until Rookwood's escape, Voldemort himself did not know how to get through. Pippin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 00:19:30 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:19:30 -0000 Subject: ????? Relativity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dms31865" wrote: > Could Crookshanks be Harry's grandfather? Just trying to decifer if > Dumbledore could be related, too, for he had the invisiblilty cloak. > Thanks for letting me post my first one. > > "dms31865" There has been a lot of speculation as to who, if anyone, Crookshanks could be an animagus form for, from Dumbledore to Mungdungus Fletcher. IMHO, this theory has one major flaw. The witch at the Magical Menagerie tells Hermione in PoA that Crockshanks has been there for ages. Now, admittedly Peter Pettigrew stayed in rat form for over tweleve years, but he had a good reason to do so. IMHO, there is no good reason for one of Harry's grandparents to spend so much time as a cat. And as to DD having the invisibility cloak, I think that we will see in the next two books (more so than we have in the past, anyway) how close DD was to the Potters, though not nessicarily related. From them being members of the Order together, to how highly DD speaks of both Lily and James, I can see James leaving a few things in DD's possession, just in case. Meri (who would be a little creeped out if she were a Gryffindor girl and Crookshakns turned out to be an elderly man) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 25 00:45:54 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:45:54 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? In-Reply-To: <20040124153205.77656.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Deanna Benfante wrote: > By the way - at the end of one of HP and the Chamber of Secrets, who is that very thin woman sitting next to Snape with the 'sharp' nose and the 'slightly' Goth outfit? Is that supposed to be his wife? > > Deanna > Prof. McGonagal Deanna, if I'm thinking of the correct scene, I always assumed that was Professor Sinistra. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mom31 at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 25 01:31:35 2004 From: mom31 at rochester.rr.com (mom31) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:31:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Creevey brothers & Petunia References: Message-ID: <006c01c3e2e2$f8e06e50$a8614242@bumbargefsmy9w> No: HPFGUIDX 89576 Shrijnana said: > When Petunia talks about the dementors in OotP, she talks about them > in the present tense. "They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban." (pg. > 31, US). It made me wonder if she has current information about the > wizarding world. Her explanation that she overheard James telling Lily > about it seemed suspect. Does anyone know if the dementors guarded > Azkaban when LV was still powerful? It seems unlikely to me given how > quickly they let the DE's out once LV was out. Joj replies: I think the Dementors were with V back then. How did Petunia gain the knowledge that they were now guards? I also think the Howler is important. Why did Petunia understand it so completely? It was very cryptic, and Dumbledore's voice wasn't very recognizable, as Harry didn't even recognize it. He also was very informal, using only her first name. There's a lot more going on here. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 25 01:38:08 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:38:08 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > What I don't understand is why the Order would guard it at all. The only one besides Harry who can remove it is Voldy himself. So let the DE's try. What could happen? But if Voldy did decide to go get it himself, which of them could stop him?< If Voldemort removed the Prophecy from the Ministry, that would at least prove that he was back. If his agents are caught trying to get it, that would also prove he was back. But since the Ministry refuses to believe that Voldemort is back, they're not keeping very careful watch, so Dumbledore has to. It may be that the guard was abandoned after Rookwood escaped or even when Arthur was attacked, at least I can't recall any references to it in the latter part of the book. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 25 01:38:48 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:38:48 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89578 > Pippin: > > The same argument applies to the Stone. But Dumbledore > > couldn't destroy it until he got Flamel's permission because it > > didn't belong to him. The Prophecy Orb belongs to the Ministry. > JR: > But I seem to remember that Harry and the gang shot spells at the > shelves that held other prophecies and they broke at least a hundred > of them that did not belong to them. So if they were able to break > prophecies that they had nothing to do with, then surely someone > could have gone in and broke the prophecy that had to do with Harry > and Voldemort. Um, I think Pippin's point was that Dumbledore, being over 150 years old, was brought up in an age when people had respect for property. I'm sure he always had the ability to destroy the stone; he just wouldn't actually do so without permission. David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 25 01:49:31 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:49:31 -0000 Subject: Why it was necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89579 Ginger wrote: > Why is it necessary? That question has pervaded many threads on this > list, most recently the "is too"/"is not" Snape is (not) a vampire > thread. The request for "why it was necessary" got me thinking about > why other things in the book were necessary. (Interesting Harry & Neville theory snipped) > And that's why I think it was all necessary. Can you explain what you mean by something being 'necessary' in the series? For myself, I don't know if it was necessary that Sirius die. I can speculate as to the author's purpose in killing off this character, and then as to whether that purpose could have been achieved any other way. Even if the answer is no, that doesn't prove necessity, because of the place of that purpose in the author's wider aims. Please understand I'm not knocking the concept. I just feel it needs a bit more definition. David From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 02:00:14 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:00:14 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's right > hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort didn't want to > kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's somehow > manipulated time to come back and save his family. Do you mean to come back and save Harry, Petunia and co.? Because if he was sending himself back in time to save the rest of his family, like Lily, he couldn't do it as a 10 year old when Harry was 15 and Lily has been dead for 14 years. I may have just read your post incorrectly but I thought you meant it as him trying to save his whole family, like Lily's mom and Lily. Diana From slytherin501 at yahoo.es Sun Jan 25 01:50:24 2004 From: slytherin501 at yahoo.es (Sembei Grindelwald) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:50:24 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89581 Shrijana then asks: > And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed > Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. Beverly replied: Virginia is a good guess. Can't think of any other name that "Ginny" would be a nickname for. (Jennifer? Gina? Nah.) Sorry, not very creative right now. Sembei asks: Why not Genevre? From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Sun Jan 25 02:27:50 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Ann Bohacek) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:27:50 -0000 Subject: (FILK) Snake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89582 Snake (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Wait_ by the Beatles) Midi is here: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/7779/beatle10.html Dedicated to Ginger Harry: Gliding on cold stone Alone, flat on the floor My eyes could then scan A man guarding the door Snake! The man sat in the dim light I controlled my urge to bite But then the man stirred He heard! To his feet, flew How did he respond? His wand he quickly drew Snake! I coiled up and swiftly sprang And attacked with my large fangs I bit him thrice My aim, precise And in his flesh His fresh blood I could taste He yelled in pain But was not slain I woke again And had to act in haste My roommates stood there Were scared, at my bedside "It wasn't a dream It seemed too real," I cried "Snake! Mr. Weasley needs our aid Or he'll die," I said, afraid "McGonagall We need to tell Dumbledore that Down at the Ministry Trouble occurred." When D'dore heard He then conjured For us a quick Port Key Now at Grimmauld Place We pace, worried all night There's nothing to say I pray he is all right -Gail B...digging the Beatles the most. From jasv132002 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 25 02:00:51 2004 From: jasv132002 at yahoo.ca (SP) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:00:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Lily really the same age as James etc. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040125020051.60529.qmail@web41605.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89583 Hitomi: They're the same age. They were Head Boy and Head Girl together, neh? Could Lily be related to Snape or LV? It's possible, though I don't personally see Rowling going that way. Just as I don't personally see Snape having ever been in love with Harry's mother. Just me, but it is possible, I suppose. Hitomi, I have to agree with you. I just don't see JKR doing things that are outside of the character's nature. At this point there are a few characters that we have come to know fairly well. Snape does not strike me as the hurt in love type. And furthermore, I don't think JKR would cheat (Dumbledore and timetravel). From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 05:15:07 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:15:07 -0000 Subject: The Essential Minor Characters Poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89584 hickengruendler wrote: > And there's Golgomath, The Gurg of the Giants. Yeah, I can see the Gurg being . . . uh . . . big. The character for whom I checked "Other" isn't exactly minor, but I think he's going to have a much bigger role than the small-but- significant ohe he's had so far: Mr. Ollivander. Mr. Ollivander is WEIRD. He knows things. He must be powerfully magical to create wands. I wouldn't be surprised if he's as old as his shop, and I have a feeling he's going to prove to be/have been essential. I'm batting about 1 for 10 in predictions, so don't put any money on this one, but I figure if I make enough of them, I can point to the appropriate posts gleefully sooner or later. Amy Z From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 06:14:26 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:14:26 -0000 Subject: Fred and George abilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shoelesskiwi" wrote: > > Sue B: > > > I see there has been a post about Fred and George and leaving > > school, > > > They failed a lot of OWLs because they couldn't be bothered > > > (as Mrs Weasley recognises) not because they were no good. No > > > wonder their Mum is frustrated!:-) > > > > Whizbang > > I thought they did well in school and in their OWLS? > > > I'm pretty sure it said they got three each, although they whichever > twin said that may have been joking (not at all unlikely) > > shoelesskiwi Sue B: No, Mrs Weasley was very upset about their results and complained about it while preparing dinner - let's see, I think in GOF. Go back and have a look. The twins were definitely underachievers! :-) From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 25 06:21:48 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:21:48 -0000 Subject: Potter Professions/MagiCreatures/MissingWeasley/ DEvictims/LovePotion/MMap Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89586 Iris, I like your philosophical/psychological post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89139 even tho' I can't comment on it. Watercolor Stain wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89098 : << Has there been a discussion/speculation on what James and Lily's professions were? >> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/arti cles/2000/1000-livechat-aol.html AOL on-line chat October 19, 2000: <> One popular theory is that James and Lily were Aurors; another is that they were researchers in the Department of Mysteries. Another is that they fought Evil and researched Ancient Magic as "talented amateurs" (to imitate Emma Peel's job title). Berit wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfor Grownups/message/89102 : << Well, I'm one of the "ignorant" ones that believes Harry IS going to be an auror :-) After all, the one thing, apart from Quidditch, that he is REALLY good at is DADA. And he knows it and enjoys it.(snip) I agree that he'll probably be dead tired of dark wizards at the end of book 7, but he'll have the whole summer to recover before starting auror training in the autumn... :-) >> If Harry defeats LV, passes some NEWTs, and lives past book 7, he'll have a right to take some vacation. Having been fighting LV for seven years, he has a right to take one, two, or three years off to do something refreshing (and he's inherited enough money to do it). He might like to travel the world and visit wizarding and Muggle foreign countries (where fewer people recognize him) or he might like to build a cabin in the woods and practise self-reliance and living close to Nature (find out how much can he do without using his wand). He can start his adult career AFTER that. I'd like to see him play professional Quidditch for a few years before he becomes an Auror, and I'd like to see him become DADA Professor at Hogwarts after a couple of decades Auror-ing, and eventually be Headmaster of Hogwarts. The above is my preference, not my prediction: I predict he'll die in book 7. << in twenty, or maybe fifty years, Hermione might be the new Minister For Magic! >> Yes! I keep saying Hermione will be the first Muggle-born Minister of Magic! Debbie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89160 : << Perhaps we'll know that the WW has made real progress when the MoM renames the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures to Department of Magical Creature Cooperation. >> But some of the creatures *aren't* people ('beings' in MoM terminology). It seems to me that Ashwinders, Doxies, and Lethifolds need to be regulated and controlled as much as fleas, mosquitos, and great white sharks. Barbara wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89162 : << First of all, I have seen many people mention the "missing" Weasley son. I tried to find references to this in the FAQs and by searching, but with no luck. Could someone either explain this or point me in the right direction? >> A lot of us compute that Bill is the oldest brother, then Charlie was born around 1967, then Percy was born in 1976, the twins in 1978, Ron in 1980, and Ginny in 1981. That computation gives a big gap between the second (Charlie) and third (Percy) child. Some of us feel that there must be a more interesting reason for such a gap than 'it just happens that way sometimes' or 'JKR has trouble with numbers and dates and ages'. An early speculation was that they'd originally planned to have another baby every two or three years, but then the Death Eater murders began (1969 in my computation) and they wanted to wait until the world would be less dangerous for children. The problem with that speculation is they DIDN'T wait for Voldemort's defeat: Percy through Ginny were all conceived during the First Voldemort Reign of Terror. Another is that they originally planned to have only two children, or only two children per each twenty years, but something made them feel a need to personally repopulate the wizarding world from all those VRoT deaths. Another is that they DID have another baby every two or three years (every three years would be Charlie 1967, another 1970, another 1973, Percy 1976), but the one(s) born between Charlie and Percy somehow died before Ron was even born, when the twins were too young to remember it much. Remembering this, but having been trained by his parents and elders to keep it secret has been offered as a reason for Percy's uptightness. Also, if one and only one of the missing children was a boy, Ron would be a seventh son, which in some folklore would give him special magic powers. Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89234 : << do the Death Eaters not go after muggles *selectively*, most likely those who've borne a witch or wizard, thereby "tainting" the wizarding world? >> I think the Death Eaters torture/kill Muggles mostly as 'targets of opportunity' (someone pointed out the Robertses at the QWC), or else for practical reasons such as the Muggle witnessed something. Kelly Lolatsukino wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89259 : << didn't Rita Skeeter say in one of her articles that love potions were illegal? >> The Skeeter article (GoF Chapter 27) says: "Love Potions are of course banned at Hogwarts." Being banned from the school is not the same as being illegal out of school. Tonya wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfor Grownups/message/89459 : << I have always thought that the map only shows people who are moving around. So if someone is still, like sitting in a chair, it would not show them. >> I always think that would be less than useful for students who use the Map to check that they can go about their nocturnal business without running into Mrs. Norris lying attentively on a stair with her front feet tucked neatly under her chest -- she's NOT moving, but she IS to be avoided. Arya wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/89464 : << odd that neither Harry nor the twins ever saw a Ron Weasley dot with a nearby Peter Pettigrew dot... >> If they had looked in the first-year Gryffindor boy's dorm in book 1 and see some unknown bloke named Peter Pettigrew in bed with Ron, they would have commented on it. Geoff Bannister http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89412 : << "He had soon mastered the Impediment Jinx, a spell to slow down and obstruct attackers, the Reductor curse which would enable him to blast solid objects out of the way and the Four-Point spell, a useful disocvery of Hermione's which would make his wand point due north therefore enabling him to check whether he was going in the right direction within the maze. He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well placed Jelly-Legs Jinx." (GOF "The Third Task" p.529 UK edition) >> Hitomi http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89426 : << Yes, and Harry taught the DA the shield charm as well. >> Thank you, folks, for bringing up a couple of things. Geoff's quote continues: "Harry wobbled around the room for a good ten minutes afterwards before she had looked up the counterjinx. "You're still doing really well, though," Hermione said encouragingly, looking down her list, and crossing off those spells they had already learnt." First is about 'counterjinx'. OoP, UK edition, chapter "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor", page 283. Hermione argues with Umbridge: "He says that counter-jinxes are improperly named. ... He says "counter-jinx" is just a name that people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable. ... But I disagree. ... Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be very useful when they're used defensively." It appears in GoF that a 'counter-jinx' is the spell that cures a person who has been jinxed, which doesn't sound to me like the same thing as a jinx except used defensively. The other thing is about the DA lessons. Page 488. " ... when Harry taught them the Shield Charm -- a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded upon the attacker -- only Hermione mastered the charm fster than Neville." It seems to me that Hermione *already knew* the Shield Charm, as she is the one who taught it to Harry back in GoF -- she is the one who went through books finding useful spells for Harry's TWT training: that is the list she was crossing off. From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 06:24:58 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > Over on OTC, we've been playing a game of inventing future HP > titles. It was quickly determined that "Harry Potter and the . . . " > is all but required, which clicked with a late-night idea in my head.... > > > > Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book > Seven: that Harry is not after all the center of the series? That > the whole story has been about the development of that other July- > born son of Order parents? Why would JKR even introduce the idea > that it could have been Neville, as she's just done in OoP, if it > isn't going to mean something? What if everyone's wrong and it > really is Neville who must and will defeat the Dark Lord?* The > ultimate way to symbolize that would be to name the book after the > true center of the story. Sue B: Or what if it's all just a case of the publisher wanting the titles that way so as to sell more books? Sorry to throw cold water on this idea (unless it's tongue-in-cheek), but sometimes a title is just a title. I've written some books myself and I know that publishers will set the title as they think best. And when you have a major series, being followed by millions of people, you do tend to do it as "so-and-so and..." There's plenty of them around. There's no reason for it to have any other significance. From ldyisabella at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 06:37:09 2004 From: ldyisabella at hotmail.com (Julie Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:37:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ginny Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89588 >Shrijana then asks: > > And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed > > Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. > >Beverly replied: > >Virginia is a good guess. Can't think of any other name that "Ginny" >would be a nickname for. (Jennifer? Gina? Nah.) Sorry, not very >creative right now. > >Sembei asks: > >Why not Genevre? > Julie comments: Another spelling is Ginevra. But the most obvious answer might be that Ginny isn't short for anything; perhaps her name is just Ginny. I think of this because a close friend of mine is named Angie -- not Angela, not Angel, Anjelica or Angelina, just Angie. Same thing with a friend of mine named Vicki, and not Victoria. We know that Ron is short for Ronald. But we also know that Percy isn't short for anything (like Percival) -- he's Percy Ignatius Weasley. Fred might be short for Frederick, but I doubt it. George on a man is usually just George. Bill & Charlie could be William & Charles, or they could be just plain Bill & Charlie. -- Julie _________________________________________________________________ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1 From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jan 25 07:19:10 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:19:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? Message-ID: <75.213b7d33.2d44c7ee@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89589 In a message dated 1/24/2004 8:18:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Deanna Benfante wrote: > By the way - at the end of one of HP and the Chamber of Secrets, who is that very thin woman sitting next to Snape with the 'sharp' nose and the 'slightly' Goth outfit? Is that supposed to be his wife? > > Deanna > Prof. McGonagal Deanna, if I'm thinking of the correct scene, I always assumed that was Professor Sinistra. ******************** Sherrie here: According to the official website, that's Madam Pince. NOT the way I pictured her... Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 07:34:57 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:34:57 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89590 Sue B wrote: > Or what if it's all just a case of the publisher wanting the titles > that way so as to sell more books? Sorry to throw cold water on this > idea (unless it's tongue-in-cheek) It partly is, but I'm utterly sincere on two points: (1) I find the "Harry Potter and the" formula rather dull and childish. That doesn't mean it's sinister, it just means JKR and I don't see eye to eye on this particular aesthetic question. (2) The backstory on Neville seems unnecessary. Why *does* Dumbledore tell it? The publisher may want to sell more books, but the fact is that most bestsellers in series aren't titled that way. If they really want to flag that this is the next book in a series, and they usually do, it's printed on the book somewhere: "A Series of Unfortunate Events, Book 4," "The Wheel of Time, Book 10," even "A Hercule Poirot Mystery," or the like. The last book could easily have been called "The Order of the Phoenix," with "Year 5 in the Harry Potter Series" stamped on the cover, and satisfied the publishers. But that clearly wasn't the way JKR wanted it. De gustibus non disputandum, except this is a book discussion group and we can disputandum with the author all we like. Amy Z From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 07:48:38 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:48:38 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sembei Grindelwald" wrote: Beverly: > Virginia is a good guess. Can't think of any other name that "Ginny" > would be a nickname for. (Jennifer? Gina? Nah.) Sorry, not very > creative right now. > > Sembei asks: > > Why not Genevre? Geoff: Bearing in mind that the Weasleys appear to stick with good, solid British names, I would think not. I would plump for Virginia or even Ginny as the full name. Bill, Tony, Fred and other "short forms" are often given as full names nowadays. From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 04:37:11 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:37:11 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89592 Karen wrote: > Snape tried to save Harry because he > knew that someone had enchanged his broom to throw him off. Snape > was doing a counter charm. That does not necessarily mean that > Snape knew who performed the initial curse. However, in Harry's final > showdown with Quirrel/Voldemort, Quirrel/Voldemort tells Harry > that Snape had tried to save him. This produces a couple of questions. > > *First, did Q/V just assume that Snape was saving a student and > not actively working against him? > > *Second, would Q/V have considered Snape no longer a follower > since he was working against him, whether consciously or unconciously? > > Snape had the interesting conversation with Quirrel outside the > Library wanting to know where his loyalties were. Knowing what we > now know, we assume that Snape was warning Quirrel not to be > working for Voldemort. However, if that is true, Quirrel/Voldemort would > now know that Snape is working against him. Snape would be no good as > a "double agent". > > If Snape was warning Quirrel to not go against the Dark Lord, then > Snape was and is playing a triple agent game, and cannot be > trusted at all. I'm not jumping on the "Evil Snape" bandwagon, but he > cannot be infiltrating Voldemort's camp without Voldemort knowing that he > is spying for Dumbledore. Either Snape's OotP activies are of a > different nature, or he doesn't know that Voldemort is on to him, > or else he is actually working for Lord Thingy. Hitomi now: Don't you just love how this entire situation that we've been discussing is completely ambiguous?! (And Karen, you brought up excellent points I hadn't bothered to think about, thank you!) The entire situation could go either way, we don't know enough about what Snape was thinking, which is the problem in Books 4 and 5, in wondering whether or not we can trust him. I agree, I find it highly unlikely LV is completely ignorant of Snape's actions. It doesn't add up with what we know of LV's character, and I rather suspect that LV probably suspects anyone and everyone, even Lucius and Bellatrix. Personally, I don't really trust Snape. He acts as a third party most of the time; we never know his true intentions,. And we don't know enough about him for me to trust him, I don't care what his past, it's no excuse to have ever joined the ranks of the Death Eaters. And I wonder sometimes, being a Death Eater, did he kill Muggles and Muggle-borns, too? There's just too much we don't know. And I know DD and Hermione trust him, but we now know DD can make mistakes, and Hermione's trust is based mostly off of DD's. And JKR told us to watch out for Snape. I'm willing to trust him, just not yet. ~ Hitomi, who has never liked Snape, but is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Sun Jan 25 04:38:30 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:38:30 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks (was Relativity) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89593 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dms31865" > wrote: > > Could Crookshanks be Harry's grandfather? > > > > "dms31865" Honey: Whee! My first opportunity to pass on info given to me after I addressed a similar question recently. Here's the response I got from Taryn Kimel: Taryn: Actually, JKR confirmed that Crookshanks is Half-Kneazle in April 27, 2001 Newsround interview. Lizo: ...I was particularly interested in the bit about the Kneazle, is Crookshanks possibly... uh, have any Kneazle...? JKR: Yes, part-Kneazle yes, he is, yes, well-spotted. Lizo: And is that important...? JKR: Well, you'll just have to keep reading, won't you Lizo? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/JKR%20Chats/ (Newsroundinterview.txt) Thanks for the opportunity to contribute. Honey From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 04:44:05 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:44:05 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana_Sirius_fan" Diana: > Do you mean to come back and save Harry, Petunia and co.? Because > if he was sending himself back in time to save the rest of his > family, like Lily, he couldn't do it as a 10 year old when Harry > was 15 and Lily has been dead for 14 years. I may have just read > your post incorrectly but I thought you meant it as him trying to > save his whole family, like Lily's mom and Lily. > > Diana Well, we don't know whatever became of Lily's and Petunia's parents, or James' mom and dad either, for that matter. They may be dead. They may have taken off thinking that all the Potters were murdered. All I'm suggesting is that by some method of manipulating time, Mr Evans may have come into Harry's time as a ten year old. Lily is dead and that can't be changed, but maybe he can help Harry or influence the outcome of Harry's conflict with Voldemort. I always wonder what Dudley meant when he said Mark "cheeked" him. lol From IrishMastermind at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 08:27:10 2004 From: IrishMastermind at hotmail.com (Anne Geldermann) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:27:10 -0500 Subject: Ginny Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89595 >Hitomi wrote: > > > There's only so much speculation we can do, Ginny was never an > > overly important figure until the latest book (discluding her > > involvement in Book 2, but she can't remember that), and there is > > quite a lot we still don't know about her. Mostly, I guess, we'll > > have to wait and see, > >Shrijnana wrote: (snip) >Tom describes her crying and being very scared when he took her into the >chamber, she must remember that! I agree. And even if she can't conciously remember all of the events of CoS, it is quite possible they are stored in her subconcious. Look at Harry: He certainly didn't remember hearing the voices of his parents and Voldemort when he was an infant, but the dementors brought it back to him nonetheless. -Anne _________________________________________________________________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ From cmbrichards at aol.com Sun Jan 25 08:47:26 2004 From: cmbrichards at aol.com (cmbrichards) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:47:26 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89596 > Fred Waldrop: > > Has anyone else thought that HRH were wrong about Sturgis > > Podmore, and why he was sent to Azkaban for 6 months. (page 258 OotP UK) > > Maybe he was sent into the DoM to destroy the Orb, but like DD, > > LV was watching also, and had his DE alert the right people at the > > right time to stop Podmore. > > Until we find out more, we really do not know why Podmore was > > trying to enter the DoM. > > > Whizbang : > What I don't understand is why the Order would guard it at all. > The only one besides Harry who can remove it is Voldy himself. So let > the DE's try. What could happen? But if Voldy did decide to go > get it himself, which of them could stop him? Harry and DD seem to be > the only possibilities. Guarding Harry would have made more > sense. Maybe that's why, the night Harry and Co went to "rescue" Sirius, > no one was on guard duty. There was just no purpose to it. > Now Christal: This is multilayered it seems. At first, Voldemort doesn't know he cant have others remove it, and he is trying to send people through the door. My problem, as Dumbledore, would not be with "The Prophecy" itself, as we know only Harry or Lord Voldemort can come for it, but with his "Death Eaters" actually making it through those doors unchecked. More lies in the DoMysteries than just those prophecies. How would Dumbledore feel if a load of Death Eaters got their hands on say, a few dozen or so time-turners? Or maybe stumbled across the door to "That Special Room" and crossed that threshold? Then you have to think about Harry. Dumbledore suspects from the beginning of OotP that Voldemort is trying to influence Harry, and has this guard over him while he is staying with the Dursley's. Obviously one is not needed at 12 Grimmauld Place, as all the Order is in and out of there anyway. But what to do about school? He can't have members of the Order taking shifts at the school to watch Harry because of Umbridge. (As to which I still have a question about her.) So the next logical step, IMOP, would be to keep the guard at the MoM where most of these people work anyway. Because face it, when the chit hits the fan, the respond barely in the nick of time. What if they hadn't been watching? This just seems like a logical move on Dumbledore's part to me. Kinda like chess....Positioning his players... Now my question about Umbridge: The first 10 times I read this book (OotP), I seemed to have not registered this part. On page 275 of the American Version, Umbridge is examining Harry's hand the final time. "Let's see if you've gotten the message yet, shall we?" said Umbridge's soft voice half an hour later. She moved toward him, stretching out her short be-ringed fingers for his arm. And then, as she took hold of him to examine the words now cut into his skin, pain seared, not across the back of his hand, but across the scar on his forehead. At the same time, he had a most peculiar sensation somewhere around his midriff. Now realizing that all throughout the book we are led to assume that this had nothing to do with Umbridge really, but just happened to coincide with Harry being here with her, I am not too sure now. I hadn't really registered what they where saying in that last sentence until now. When reading this tonight, this struck me plainly as arousal. A sick and twisted type. Almost as though Voldemort got turned on by this woman. So then I would have to say, is Umbridge something to Voldemort. Maybe a past girlfriend or brief affair? This is just an odd statement to make in this passage. Especially combining it with the scar. I don't know...Thoughts anyone? Christal Never Stop Asking Why From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 04:10:59 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:10:59 -0000 Subject: Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89597 > Hitomi: > > >... Ginny and... I also think we'll see more of her because of Quidditch, > >what with the only old member on >the team being Harry, so he'll probably > >end up Quidditch Captain. Fred and George are gone, and >Angelina, Alicia, > >and Katie just graduated. So, if Ginny is a Chaser, maybe Harry will get > >to know her >better (good point for H/G shippers, anyway). > Aesha: > > Well, I can't get the website to let me look at the posts, and I'm on > >digest, so this may have been answered already. But I think there's been > >speculation as to whether Katie *is* actually leaving Hogwarts in book 5. > >Ginny only mentions that Alicia and Angelina are leaving, she doesn't > >mention Katie. > Julie's thoughts -- For some reason, I had been under the impression that > Katie Bell graduated prior to Angelina and Alicia. I was trying to look up > on the Harry Potter Lexicon for more background on that, but the site seems > to be down in places. Who else has any citations on this? Hitomi now: Hey guys! Anyway, I KNOW there is a quote in the books SOMEWHERE that states Katie is the same age as Alicia. I'm in the middle of looking for it, so give me time on that, but the Lexicon states Katie is the same age as Angelina and Alicia, meaning she graduated. Oh, and yeah, she was still on the Quidditch team in the fifth book, Julie, so she couldn't've graduated, yet, neh? :-) I'm looking, just give me a bit, I'll post the quote when I find it! Thanks for making me look for this, though, I should have given the proof to begin with >_< > Aesha: > >Anyway, I'm hoping Ron will be captain. It would fit so nicely with what he > >saw in the Mirror. Ooh, wait... he just saw that he was head boy and > >holding the Quidditch cup, not Captain? > Julie: > Here's what Ron saw in the mirror, quoted from HP&SS (Hardback American > Edition) chapter 12, p211: > "I'm alone -- but I'm different -- I look older -- and I'm head boy!" ... > "I'm wearing the badge like Bill used to -- and I'm holding the house cup > and the Quidditch cup -- I'm quidditch captain too!" > > So yup, in his mirror vision Ron got the whole sack of beans, when it comes > to achievement at Hogwarts. Hitomi now: Personally, I still think it will be Harry over Ron. Ron got to be a prefect, and Harry was never meant to be banned according to McGonagall, just given detention, and she decides the Quidditch players. It just makes more sense to me; Harry has been on the team the longest, has the most experience, and is probably the best flyer. Which is usually how team captains are chosen, not to mention people would follow him. Do I think Ron could be captain? Sure, but instead of doing the things he saw when he was eleven, and thought he wanted (to be the best of his brothers), how about he do something completely different instead? Bill and Percy were Head Boys, Charlie was Quidditch captain, why not let Ron be unique, and do something none of them did? I'd prefer that myself. Especially with Quidditch and grades being on the lower end of priorities in the next two books (you know, behind staying alive and trying to prevent LV from taking power :-) ). From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 04:17:10 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:17:10 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89598 > Hitomi wrote: > > There's only so much speculation we can do, Ginny was never an > > overly important figure until the latest book (discluding her > > involvement in Book 2, but she can't remember that), and there is > > quite a lot we still don't know about her. Mostly, I guess, we'll > > have to wait and see, > > I totally agree... there's certain things JKR doesn't want us to know > yet. It's hard not to speculate though while being so impatient for > book 6. Shrijnana wrote: > But after reading replies to my questions I've thought of another > possibility why Ginny is entranced by the veil. Lets her experiences > with Tom Riddle in COS are enough to cause her to have a strong > reaction to the dementors - which they very well could be, Tom > describes her crying and being very scared when he took her into the > chamber, she must remember that! Maybe her being entranced by the veil > has something to do with the nature of Tom Marvolo/LV and the changes > TM went through to become LV. > > But again, speculation will only take us so far. That's why I'm > interested in her name; it might be a clue to her role. Hitomi now: That's what I kind of thought, too, that maybe it was a reaction to her second year experiences, just maybe not the things she can't necessarily remember, but then, too, maybe a Dementor could make her remember. I wish we knew more about Ginny, and names are usually very good clues, though "Ginny" tells us nothing. Unless someone else has a theory on her name? Anyway, I totally agree, shrijnana, I think there is more to the smallest Weasley. I'm just waiting patiently until Book 6 for any confirmation on that. Ok, maybe not so patiently... :-) ~ Hitomi From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 05:06:10 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:06:10 -0000 Subject: Is Lily really the same age as James etc. . . In-Reply-To: <20040125020051.60529.qmail@web41605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89599 Hitomi wrote: Could Lily be related to Snape or LV? It's possible, though I don't personally see Rowling going that way. Just as I don't personally see Snape having ever been in love with Harry's mother. Just me, but it is possible, I suppose. SP wrote: Hitomi, I have to agree with you. I just don't see JKR doing things that are outside of the character's nature. At this point there are a few characters that we have come to know fairly well. Snape does not strike me as the hurt in love type. And furthermore, I don't think JKR would cheat (Dumbledore and timetravel). Hitomi now: Hey SP! I agree with you, too, and I just wanted to throw in my extra two pence. To all those who believe these theories: I'm not saying they couldn't be true, or are stupid to believe, etc. I'm simply saying that JKR planned this whole story out years ago, and has written the books in a very specific way. She made her epic complex, and her stories, to an extent, slightly naive in their expression. What I mean is JKR hasn't stated that Harry and his peers know of such things as drugs, teenage pregnancy, illicit affairs, fornication, adultery, etc. We pretty much know the characters know, but it isn't stated, the closest thing to any of this being the subject of Hagrid's mother running off and taking up with another giant, and then having Grawp. These are children's books, and though I do think such things can be discussed in children's books (at least to an extent), they are not what JKR concentrates on, which is why I think she never gives us much of an answer when readers ask about SHIPS. She's working with the concept of good vs. evil, and I HIGHLY doubt she will waste precious space on Snape having once loved Lily, and that's why he hates James, or LV having an affair with Lily, or James and Lily not actually being Harry's parents. Her books are already reaching encyclopedia-size, and she has so many other subjects to write about, and so many loose strings left to tie up. But that is to say, I DON'T think some of these theories are stupid (though I have heard some strange ones). A lot of them are right clever, but if JKR stays true to her style, I don't actually see many of them happening. Though, yes, I could ALWAYS be wrong, and we'll know in the end. There really is only so much speculation one can do, as I've mentioned in a couple of previous posts, and instead of hypothesizing on theories straight out of left field, I prefer to speculate on what we DO know. However, coming up with some theories can definitely be fun. I usually just don't bother anymore. Things I thought might happen haven't, and things I thought would be stupid if they happened... well, they happened, and JKR made them clever. So, while I have fun reading the crazy, or not-so-crazy, theories of others, a lot of the time I just shrug and don't give them another thought. Because we can't know. I just make sure to buy the next book as soon as humanly possible :-) Before I leave this alone, I just want to say that I've read some theories I absolutely loved, and that I'm not trying to be cynical, more like indifferent. I like to let the next book be a surprise, if you know what I mean. But personally, I too find the DD-is-Ron/Harry theory to be too easy. It strikes me as cheating as well, and just so... anti- climatic. ~ Hitomi, who will admit she is wrong profusely if any of these theories turn out to be true, right before she sticks her foot in her mouth From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 06:01:36 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:01:36 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89600 Amy Z wrote: > In the past, I've figured there were two possible reasons for JKR's > (again IMO) dull titles. One is that JKR's ear for language is > simply not at its best (=in keeping with my own) when it comes to > titles. The other is that she's aware that the titles are a bit > monotonous, but Harry IS, after all, the linchpin of recent wizarding- > world history. Thus, once in a while, when someone here deems that a > theory mistakenly puts another character besides Harry at the center > of the series, he/she will bolster his/her argument by pointing > out, "There's a reason the books are called "Harry Potter and the...'" > > Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book > Seven: that Harry is not after all the center of the series? That > the whole story has been about the development of that other July- > born son of Order parents? Why would JKR even introduce the idea > that it could have been Neville, as she's just done in OoP, if it > isn't going to mean something? What if everyone's wrong and it > really is Neville who must and will defeat the Dark Lord?* The > ultimate way to symbolize that would be to name the book after the > true center of the story. > > The problem is, the new title would signal the twist. If Book Seven > is called Neville Longbottom and the Final Secret or whatnot, well, > the secret would be out before we opened the book. > > I did say it was a late-night idea. But I like the way it redeems an > aspect of the series I've always considered to be rather weak. Hitomi: I don't want people to think I'm immature for what I'm about to say, because I will explain why I said it: I think Harry is *the One* and not Neville, and I think this theory is totally wrong. Please don't be mad Amy, I'm not saying you couldn't be right, because you could be, and this isn't coming from my biased view of the fact that my favorite character is Harry, though he is. My explanation will be as objective as I can possibly make it. First, part of my reasoning why I think Harry to be *the One*. I'm going to give this link (I gave it in one other post, too), because Maline does such a good job of explaining this, and giving the link saves loads of bandwith. Besides, I am planning to post my rant on the prophecy soon. PLEASE read it, so that you know where I'm coming from, and it isn't biased towards Harry ;) http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt02.shtml Second, and my main reasoning for why I don't agree with Amy, is the fact that this story, this epic Rowling has created, is Harry's. Even if Neville turns out to be *the One*, the story is still Harry's. Every moment is from his point of view (except the first chapters of Book 1 and 4, for obvious reasons). I don't think this aspect of the series to be weak at all, and loads of children's books have similar title patterns. It's just a title, I find the book itself much more important, I'm sure you'll agree. And yes, I too, believe JKR threw Neville in at the end of Book 5 for a reason, and I think he has a large part to play, but if that concept of Neville hadn't been thrown in, we would all still see him as insecure secondary-character-Neville, who's story is kind of sad, but who seems to be growing into his own self. People love to cheer for the under-dog, which is why so many want to believe Neville is *the One* over Harry, at least in my opinion. But it doesn't completely add up (read the link!!!). And I don't know if it's because I'm still a teenager, or because most of the people on this list are a whole lot older than me (I'm 18, if anyone's curious), but I've always viewed these books as about Harry, and not because he is the "current-historical-lynchpin- of-the-WW." If you take away Harry, there is no story, it is entirely told through his eyes, and the very first chapter is entitled "The Boy Who Lived;" the book-titles aren't the only blatantly obvious ones. And my defense of Harry doesn't come from the fact that the books are named after him, that's just exemplary. My defense stems from the fact that, yes, Rowling has created this entire world, and from most of the adults I've talked to, they seem to be most concerned with that, wanting that world expounded on, but the core of these books is *Harry* and *his* relationship to the rest of the WW, and that's mostly what the younger readers I know care about. And I don't mean that I care about that because I love Harry. I mean I care about that fact, because I was thirteen when the first HP book was released in the U.S., still thirteen upon Book 2, fourteen upon Book 3, and then fifteen upon Book 4. I have related to these books, because any many ways, that WAS me in them. I'm eighteen now, but Book 5 was by far my favorite, and mostly because of the way Harry acts. A lot of adults and very young children don't get that, but my life still pretty much consists of massive amounts of teen-angst, and all through Book 5, I was going "YEAH! Go Harry! Finally getting a little of your own back!" The kid has been through hell and back again, and for some reason a lot of people think he should just forgive and forget, step back, be altruistic in thought and action. The kid is always altruistic in action when it really matters (a.k.a. life and death situations), but he's not a saint. NO ONE acts like that all the time, almost no one at the age of fifteen, and most of us have never been through even half of what Harry regularly goes through. He's got every right to be just a little pissed off by the hand the universe has dealt him (which JKR also mentioned in an interview :-) ). I know I'd feel cosmically shysted. Lastly, my defense comes from the fact that JKR continually refers to Harry as "the hero of the books," "her hero," etc., and I doubt she'll drop her entire set-up of the last five books for a plot- twist. It just doesn't make sense. I've read so many of her interviews, and so many editorials on her books, and Harry is the lynchpin (to steal Amy's word :) ) of the entire series. Why would she suddenly change that later - in Book 7? Again, I think Neville has quite a large part to act out, but these books aren't just named after Harry. They ARE Harry's; they are his story. Neville just happens to be a part of that story. Otherwise, it would have been called "Neville Longbottom and the...," or "Hermione Granger and the..." from the beginning. ~ Hitomi, who suspects she is about to get seriously flamed by someone From tigerfan41 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 13:24:24 2004 From: tigerfan41 at yahoo.com (Darrell Harris) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:24:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 4182 In-Reply-To: <1075011716.5941.80478.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040125132424.79072.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89601 Message: 8 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:21:25 -0000 From: "whizbang" Subject: Re: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Fred Waldrop: What I don't understand is why the Order would guard it at all. The only one besides Harry who can remove it is Voldy himself. So let the DE's try. What could happen? But if Voldy did decide to go get it himself, which of them could stop him? Harry and DD seem to be the only possibilities. Guarding Harry would have made more sense. Maybe that's why, the night Harry and Co went to "rescue" Sirius, no one was on guard duty. There was just no purpose to it. Whizbang It seemed to me they were there more to catch DD in the open to provide proof of his return. The OOP knows only he or Harry may remove it. I think they were there to sound the alarm and get witnesses to the scene if he showed his snakey face. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 13:44:28 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:44:28 -0000 Subject: Longbottoms' memory charm (was Re: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > > What the speculation doesn??t answer, though, is who would have given > Neville a memory charm and why. I think Neville??s parents?? insanity > is part of this same mystery. The pieces we have now just don??t add > up. Why were the Longbottoms left alive? Surely their torturers > can??t have assumed that they would be rendered permanently insane > from a little Crucio. There??s no evidence elsewhere in the books to > suggest that this was a known effect of the curse. Do we *really* > know that Cruciatus caused their insanity? I've always understood that the tormentors were caught red handed, and that's why the Longbottoms were found alive. > > And why aren??t they getting better? If intensive remedial potions > and charms can produce improvement in Gilderoy Lockhart, surely they > would help wizards as talented as the Longbottoms. > > One of my old pre-OOP theories was that it was an overwrought memory > charm that caused Frank and Alice Longbottom to lose their sanity. > The reappearance of Lockhart on the same ward where they??re > imprisoned seems to reinforce that theory. My alternative theory > was that the Longbottoms lost their sanity after being tortured (as > Bertha Jorkins was) in order to break through a memory charm placed > on them earlier, and that like Bertha??s, their ??minds and bodies > were damaged beyond repair.?? Maybe the Lestranges extracted this > information (though I can??t figure out why the Longbottoms would > have already been memory charmed), or maybe someone in the > Department of Magical Law Enforcement did it in order to learn the > identities of the Longbottoms?? torturers and satisfy the public??s > demand for convictions. In the latter case, it would be prudent to > cast the charm on Neville as well, to erase his memory of his > parents after the torture. And if the DMLE was responsible, they > would have good reason to be continuing to cover up, which would > explain why the Longbottoms aren??t getting any better. It doesn't make sense to me that the Longbottoms' insanity is due to a memory charm placed on them *after* they were tortured. It's true that Lockhart lost his mind following the misplaced memory charm, but I see it as due to the fact that he didn't mean to direct it towards himself and that the wand he used was pretty much broken down. However, we learn from the Lockhart incident that it is possible to lay a memory charm on oneself. This ties in to my my pet theory regarding the Longbottoms' insanity: that they laid a memory charm on themselves, to protect whatever crucial piece of information the DEs were desperate to recover regarding Voldemort. It was the attempt to break through this memory charm that made them insane (which we know happens because of the Bertha Jorkins story). In the same vein, it was his parents who memory charmed Neville, both in order to protect him, and to protect the information he might have absorbed from them. Naama From anne_conda at web.de Sun Jan 25 13:06:30 2004 From: anne_conda at web.de (Anne) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:06:30 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89604 Ciao, Unfortunately I haven't got the time to mole my way through all those theories posted about the possible ending of the Harry Potter series. Therefore I'm forced to crib my theory unknowing whether there's a secret soul mate who had already expressed the a similar idea in the past. Will Harry survive? As much as I'd love him to marry (Hermione, of course *scratchesbrowindifferently*), to have 12 kids and live happy ever after once Voldemort plays chess against that other ungodly guy down there with this unhealthily reddish skin, horns and trident I'm afraid, he really won't make it. That's why: (PS/SS) >>"The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, Harry" Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him. He looked back at the whisperers as if he wanted to say something to them, but thought better of it. He dashed back across the road, hurried up to his office, snapped at his secretary not to disturb him, seized his telephone, and had almost finished dialing his home number when he changed his mind. He put the receiver back down and stroked his mustache, thinking no, he was being stupid. Potter wasn't such an unusual name. He was sure there were lots of people called Potter who had a son called Harry. Come to think of it, he wasn't even sure his nephew was called Harry. He'd never even seen the boy. It might have been Harvey. Or Harold. There was no point in worrying Mrs. Dursley; she always got so upset at any mention of her sister.<< well, obviously this can't be Harry's perspective, can it? In fact the whole book's opening isn't. Then, WHO is it leading the reader? I know a time I argued against the case of Harry's death: "Well, WHO do you reckon will continue telling the story once Harry is dead, since apparently HE is the narrator in some way? You know Rowling promised us epilogues." Probably the very same WHO, who inaugurated the series, to answer my own question, as weird as this is. It would round off the story- telling just fine: introducing Harry, accompany dear Harry, burying Harry and Good- bye. But, Janus- ly as I am, I am proud to contradict my own horrifying illustration: maybe, just maybe, Madame Rowling was a bit unsteady in her use of viewpoints in her first novel, since a bit later in the very same book- and after that never ever again- she switches from her literary a- look- over- Harry's- shoulder- angle to a very err independent one: (PS/SS) >>"Dunno what Harry thinks he's doing," Hagrid mumbled. He stared through his binoculars. "If I didn' know better, I'd say he'd lost control of his broom but he can't have " Suddenly, people were pointing up at Harry all over the stands. His broom had started to roll over and over, with him only just managing to hold on. Then the whole crowd gasped. Harry's broom had given a wild jerk and Harry swung off it. He was now dangling from it, holding on with only one hand. "Did something happen to it when Flint blocked him?" Seamus whispered.<< You see my point: this whole scene simply ISN'T Harry's point of view and I really can't see any need for a change of perspective during such a random scene like this, which leaves me alerted to better not pay too much thought in her otherwise remarkable series' opening. Perhaps her authorial consideration at this virgin stage of her career was just as wonky as Harry's broom in forenamed scene. Certainly the mysterious WHO had to take the job since Harry was too busy dangling one- handed down his broom This forces cereal feed to my bulimic hope (yeah, pessimist) that I'll see the epilogue with Harry proudly present and friskily frolic. .annie feeling slightly doctor- hyde- y today. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 25 14:44:47 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:44:47 -0000 Subject: The Death of Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89605 Eileen wrote: > Furthermore, I find the things that most people dislike about the book > are the ones that delighted me even the first time around. On the whole, that's true for me, too. I think being part of a discussion group has played a big part in that. It caused me to raise my game closer to JKR's level. > Sirius's death, for instance. Have I ever mentioned before how much I > love JKR's little trick of making tangible things tangible? Dementors, > the Mirror of Erised, and now the Veil. No, it wasn't 'realistic' for > Sirius to fall surprised and gracefully through the Veil of Death. > > No, Sirius's death is not realistic in the sense that "Death By > Falling Through Veil" is a common result of coroner's reports. It's > real on a different level, a mythic level. > > This is probably a good time to pause a second as I know that people's > eyes are suddenly glazing over and can predict the response. "Well, > yeah, it didn't work emotionally so now you're *analyzing* it, and > coming up with a fancy theory of how it works mechanically." Interesting - I feel you are saying that, for you, it *does* work emotionally, but not through the use of words to create impressions and feelings of the moment in the reader's mind, but through symbols which summon up whole chunks of feeling and emotion that are already there. Is that right? For myself, the thing that works so well about Sirius' death is that it is death pure and simple. A stop to life for the subject, and a loss of the person for his friends. We are confronted with the rawness and immediacy of loss of life, not the uncertainties, pain, grief or drawn-out-ness of a death scene. It leaves me feeling that for Harry, even regret and grief are diminished - and therefore fuelled - by the starkness of the event itself. (Or am I just repeating what you already said?) > And > Sirius - well, Sirius had a death wish all through the book and > finally has it granted in that last scene. Yes, again, for me Sirius' slightly deranged behaviour throughout OOP makes him a more attractive character, not less. It makes it more of a tragedy that he dies with so many unresolved issues, as no doubt we all do. David From longrain13 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 08:29:02 2004 From: longrain13 at yahoo.com (Jennifer Palmares) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:29:02 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89606 I've been wondering about this myself. Dudley and Aunt Petunia must be squibs. I've also been thinking about the prophecy lately, and what it says about a child being born in the seventh month. Wasn't Dudley also born in July? Maybe its just a red herring. Something to think about anyhow. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 25 14:58:07 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:58:07 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89607 Amy Z wrote: > I've long thought that the "Harry Potter and the . . . " formula was > kind of feeble. IMO, the titles would be more poetic and less > childish if they were called, simply, "The Philosopher's Stone," "The > Chamber of Secrets," etc.--or perhaps the first "Harry Potter and the > Philosopher's Stone," and then just "The Chamber of Secrets," "The > Prisoner of Azkaban," etc. Though if the issue were name recognition, the first title might have omitted 'Harry Potter' and the later titles included it (think of Indiana Jones). > Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book > Seven: that Harry is not after all the center of the series? I can think of a couple of other possibilities. Perhaps Book 7 is to be entitled 'Harry Potter and X Y' where X Y is the name of a person - say Severus Snape or Neville or Voldemort or some as yet unknown character. On the assumption that the seven titles were then planned in outline (we know GOF was 'Doomspell Tournament' for a while so quite what we *can* assume is problematic - it is even possible that GOF was always intended but DT was a working title used for some obscure security reason), then this might force the 'HP and...' formula for the rest. The other possibility is much simpler, that the titles are meant to evoke some other literary series which used a similar formula. The trouble is, I can't think of any plausible ones. Any ideas? David From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jan 25 15:16:59 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:16:59 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seventh month Dudley Message-ID: <1e6.17fd6477.2d4537eb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89608 In a message dated 1/25/2004 9:49:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, longrain13 at yahoo.com writes: I've been wondering about this myself. Dudley and Aunt Petunia must be squibs. I've also been thinking about the prophecy lately, and what it says about a child being born in the seventh month. Wasn't Dudley also born in July? Maybe its just a red herring. Something to think about anyhow. ************************* Sherrie here: >From PS/SS, I got the impression that Dudders' birthday is at least a month before Harry's, and probably more, as I seem to recall mention of it being during the school year. I'd read Dudley as a particularly odious undeveloped Taurus... My two Knuts - as ever, YMMV. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 25 15:29:34 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:29:34 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" wrote: > > (PS/SS) > > >>"The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, > Harry" > > Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him. He looked back at the whisperers as if he wanted to say something to them, but thought better of it. > well, obviously this can't be Harry's perspective, can it? In fact > the whole book's opening isn't. Then, WHO is it leading the reader? > > > I know a time I argued against the case of Harry's death: "Well, WHO do you reckon will continue telling the story once Harry is dead, since apparently HE is the narrator in some way? You know Rowling promised us epilogues." > > > > Probably the very same WHO, who inaugurated the series, to answer my own question, as weird as this is. > > > (PS/SS) > >>"Dunno what Harry thinks he's doing," Hagrid mumbled. He stared through his binoculars. "If I didn' know better, I'd say he'd lost control of his broom but he can't have " > You see my point: this whole scene simply ISN'T Harry's point of view <<< I always thought the narrator for the second quote might be Dumbledore. Who else would know that Snape never found out who set him on fire? That would argue that Dumbledore is going to survive the series...I imagine him retired on that beach Harry thought of, with suntan lotion on his long nose. And you know, if Dumbledore were the narrator for the first quote, that solves a great mystery. We then know how he spent the missing twenty-four hours. He was invisible, following Mr. Dursley around and using Legilimency to read his thoughts. Pippin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 15:43:51 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:43:51 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: <1e6.17fd6477.2d4537eb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/25/2004 9:49:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, > longrain13 at y... writes: > I've been wondering about this myself. Dudley and Aunt Petunia must > be squibs. I've also been thinking about the prophecy lately, and > what it says about a child being born in the seventh month. Wasn't > Dudley also born in July? Maybe its just a red herring. Something > to think about anyhow. > ************************* > Sherrie here: > > From PS/SS, I got the impression that Dudders' birthday is at least a month > before Harry's, and probably more, as I seem to recall mention of it being > during the school year. I'd read Dudley as a particularly odious undeveloped > Taurus... > > My two Knuts - as ever, YMMV. > > Sherrie > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I believe Sherrie is right about this. In SS, when they go to the zoo for Dudley's birthday and Harry gets in trouble for freeing the boa constrictor, Harry is given a major punnishment, and when he is finally released from the cupboard under the stairs the shcool hollidays have started. So Dudley's birthday must be at least in June. Meri (who never stops wondering why no one at primary school ever noticed that Harry was getting abused at home) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 25 16:02:36 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 25 Jan 2004 16:02:36 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1075046556.36.67723.m8@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89611 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, January 25, 2004 Time: 11:00AM - 7:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) Hi everyone! Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. *Chat times are not changing for Daylight Saving/Summer Time.* Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. Go into any Yahoo chat room and type /join HP:1 For further info, see the Humongous BigFile, section 3.3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html#33 Hope to see you there! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 16:19:01 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:19:01 -0000 Subject: Stockwell Orphanage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: (snip) >>most of the scholars listed are from the London area. (snip) > However, there are a number of pupils in ths list who come from towns and villages far outside the London area. (snip) >Possibly therefore, Tom Riddle Senior was a Baptist (though his behaviour suggests that he was a bad one!) and so TR Junior finished up there. > However, a second possbility is that, having been abandoned, Tom's mothe went to relatives who organised her while she approached her >labour - in a hospital either locally or in London and that Tom went > to Stockwell after his mothers' death. > > Plenty to chew on over this! Carolyn: Geoff, how fascinating; I hope your contact is enjoying this detective 'riddle' as much as we are ! I agree that it seems a bit of stretch to see any of the Riddle family as especially religious, whatever denomination. How about, instead, Tom's mother is taken in by the local parish when she is abandoned by her husband, then when she dies after giving birth to Tom, the little boy is left on the parish's hands, and the local Baptist minister suggests sending him to the Stockwell orphanage ? It still doesn't explain why her wizard family didn't look after her, but it would at least get Tom to London. Now, I expect you will be able to tell us how widespread the Baptist ministry was in the 1920s - was it all over the UK, or would there be any reason for it to be concentrated in particular areas ? Areas that might be possibles for Little Hangleton (which other research seems to suggest is at least a few hundred miles from London, possibly in Yorkshire, as most other directions land you in the sea !). My other theory is that his father knew the birth had taken place and orchestrated the removal, to ensure this embarrassing child was taken as far as possible from his home - suitably Dickensian, and possibly echoing JKR's own family knowledge of what happened to orphans. Perhaps, as a rich man's son, some strings were pulled with the local clergy to facilitate this ? A further unexplained aspect of this puzzle is that the marriage of Voldemort's parents must have been quite well known locally - the heir of the house marrying a village girl would have been something people talked about. Although I don't suppose they were told she was a witch, there must have been some cover up story to explain why she was suddenly abandoned when pregnant ? Most likely she was accused of having an affair with someone else, and it was put about that the baby was not her husband's, so perhaps she was sent to a home for 'fallen women'. It would be quite likely that such a home would be regularly visited by clergy. Even more questions...as always with JKR. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 25 16:18:59 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:18:59 -0000 Subject: The Death of Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89613 Eileen: >>No, it wasn't 'realistic' for Sirius to fall surprised and gracefully through the Veil of Death.<< Have any of the deaths in the series been realistic? No real person has ever died of the Avada Kedavra curse, or had their life force drained by an enchanted diary, or by the strain of supporting two souls in one body, or because after 600 some years, they've run out of Elixir of Life. Eileen: >> But while I'm talking about Sirius's death, I think something needs to be said about what aspect of death JKR is portraying. A good many quotes have been passed around from JKR about death as brutal, sudden etc. but none of them seem to address the general ambience of death in OotP. And I'm not surprised. If I were JKR, I wouldn't be caught dead talking about *that*. OotP is about *seductive* death. > Unlike GoF, where death is brutal and destroying, death in OotP is inviting. Harry is almost lured through the veil by the voices just beyond. He wishes for death when Voldemort has him in his grip. And Sirius - well, Sirius had a death wish all through the book and finally has it granted in that last scene. << Do you really think so? I think Harry has it right, "He didn't want to go at all!" Sirius's death is tragic because he wanted to live so much. It was because Sirius wanted to live that he suffered so being cooped up in Grimmauld Place. He didn't leave because he thought death would be better, IMO, he left because Harry needed him. Sirius had too much thrill-seeker in him to be happy at Grimmauld Place, but I don't at all see him as suicidal. Paradoxically, he was better equipped to endure captivity while he was in Azkaban and needed all his energy in the struggle to survive and retain his sanity, than in the safe but depressing atmosphere of Grimmauld Place. I know Hermione makes it sound a bit as if Sirius had a death wish, but I am wary of Hermione's cartoonish explanations of everyone's behavior. I think they are oversimplifed, both because that's the way she thinks, and because JKR needs a way to make complex behavior transparent for her younger readers (or those who just want to zip through the text without thinking too hard.) I would say the overarching message about death in OOP is "Thou shalt not waste life." This is emphasized by the glimpse of Sirius' "wasted" face as he falls through the veil. It's really Voldemort who has the death wish, though it's projected toward other people. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 25 16:27:30 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:27:30 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > The other possibility is much simpler, that the titles are meant to evoke some other literary series which used a similar formula. The trouble is, I can't think of any plausible ones.< I think the idea is to evoke the idea of the genre series in general. JKR pulls off alot of her literary legerdemain by flourishing the cloak of pulp--Snape in Book One does everything but twirl his moustache. Pippin From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 16:53:35 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:53:35 -0000 Subject: Stockwell Orphanage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Now, I expect you will be able to tell us how widespread the Baptist ministry was in the 1920s - was it all over the UK, or would there be any reason for it to be concentrated in particular areas ? Areas that might be possibles for Little Hangleton (which other research seems to suggest is at least a few hundred miles from London, possibly in Yorkshire, as most other directions land you in the sea !). > (Carolyn again): Geoff, a further point on location. As you will have gathered, I wouldn't choose Baptist history as my starter for 10 on Mastermind, but a faint bell has just rung in my head about the Welsh Baptists, as a well-known and vocal part of your church. There are so many Welsh threads in the series, not least about Godric's Hollow, dragons, green eyes etc etc.. could this be another? Is Little Hangleton on the Welsh border perhaps ? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 18:49:41 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:49:41 -0000 Subject: Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89616 > Hitomi now: > Hey guys! Anyway, I KNOW there is a quote in the books SOMEWHERE > that states Katie is the same age as Alicia. I'm in the middle of > looking for it, so give me time on that, but the Lexicon states > Katie is the same age as Angelina and Alicia, meaning she > graduated. Oh, and yeah, she was still on the Quidditch team in the > fifth book, Julie, so she couldn't've graduated, yet, neh? :-) I'm > looking, just give me a bit, I'll post the quote when I find it! > Thanks for making me look for this, though, I should have given the > proof to begin with >_< I actually raised this exact question about two months ago (I think) and got several answers but nobody who manage to find any canon regarding Katie's age. At the time I also ran a computerized search over all 5 books, finding any single case where the words "Katie" and "Bell" are mentioned, and couldn't find any reference to her age. Of course it is possible the information is there but in a more implicit form. For example, an evidence that all the players in the team during SS/PS were also on the team during the previous year, which will imply that Katie could not be a second year in SS/PS because Harry was the only first year player in 100 yrs. Or any evidence that Katie goes to the same class at the same time with Angelina and/or Alicia. The information might also be in a JKR interview. I don't have a clue what was the lexicon based upon when listing Katie in the same year with Alicia and Angelina. So good luck with your difficult quest, and please be sure to report any conclusions. > Hitomi now: > Personally, I still think it will be Harry over Ron. Ron got to be > a prefect, and Harry was never meant to be banned according to > McGonagall, just given detention, and she decides the Quidditch > players. It just makes more sense to me; Harry has been on the team > the longest, has the most experience, and is probably the best > flyer. Which is usually how team captains are chosen, not to > mention people would follow him. Do I think Ron could be captain? > Sure, but instead of doing the things he saw when he was eleven, and > thought he wanted (to be the best of his brothers), how about he do > something completely different instead? Bill and Percy were Head > Boys, Charlie was Quidditch captain, why not let Ron be unique, and > do something none of them did? I'd prefer that myself. Especially > with Quidditch and grades being on the lower end of priorities in > the next two books (you know, behind staying alive and trying to > prevent LV from taking power :-) Neri again: I like this theory. My own tentative theory, based on Ron winning the quidditch cup in OotP, is that Ron *is* going to get everything he saw in the mirror of Erised, but winning it will cost him at least as much heartache and woe as the quidditch cup cost him. This will teach him something about the price of glory that he definitely needs to learn. Neri From paulag5777 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 18:59:15 2004 From: paulag5777 at yahoo.com (Paula Gaon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:59:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fred and George abilities Message-ID: <20040125185915.48779.qmail@web40009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89617 25Jan04 Whizbang wrote: " I thought they (Fred and George) did well in school and in their OWLS?" Paula now: Humm... I'v always had the impression the the Twins did OK in school, but not as well as they could because they just don't invest their time in formal study preparing to pass exams, hence all of Mrs Weasley's complaints. They're more into the practical/market value of magic. And like in the "Real Muggle World", academic and practical studies are not one in the same, and success in one doesn't gaurantee success of the other. However, some gut instinct just tells me that the Twins will make some sort of real Coup when all's said and done. JKR has portrayed them as such a clever and active pair, that I fully expect them to have a major role in the conquest of LV before all is said and done. That swooping exit from Hogwarts and the accompanying insults to Umbridge absolutely beg for a follow-up. Just my humble opinion... ~Paula Gaon Please visit Beautiful and Fun Things: http://alumni.austincollege.edu/pgaon/ "...Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fredwaldrop at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 19:21:23 2004 From: fredwaldrop at yahoo.com (Fred Waldrop) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:21:23 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89618 Shrijana asks: And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. Beverly replied: Virginia is a good guess. Can't think of any other name that "Ginny" would be a nickname for. (Jennifer? Gina? Nah.) Sorry, not very creative right now. Sembei asks: Why not Genevre? Julie comments: Another spelling is Ginevra. But the most obvious answer might be that Ginny isn't short for anything; perhaps her name is just Ginny. I think of this because a close friend of mine is named Angie -- not Angela, not Angel, Anjelica or Angelina, just Angie. Same thing with a friend of mine named Vicki, and not Victoria. -- Julie ===================================================================== Hello all, Fred Waldrop here; As Julie said, Ginny might be short for Ginny. My name is Fred, I can not tell you how many theachers told me my name COULD NOT just be Fred, it had to be Fredrick or something, but surly not just just Fred. But, seeing as I have seen my birth certificate, I can assure EVERYONE, my name , like my fathers and my grandfathers name, IS just plain ole Fred. There is nothing wrong with having a name like Fred or Ginny or any other name that might have came frome another name, but has been simplified, it is just harder to convince others that your name is what it is. Just Fred From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 19:47:00 2004 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:47:00 -0000 Subject: What Does Neville Know? was Re: Why it was necessary: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89619 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" > wrote: <> >Ginger wrote: Why, as many have asked, did Sirius have to die? Here's my theory: Harry and Neville need to become closer than before. For some reason, perhaps the Prophecy, they will need to be at each other's side more than ever. Now that they have this common bond, and are free to talk about it, I feel that they will become closer and better unified to fight not only Bellatrix, but her master as well. Bellatrix is the catalyst. >Entropy wrote: > I think this theory makes a lot of sense. My problem with Sirius all along has not been so much "why did he have to die?" but, rather "why did he have to be?" However, your theory really makes some sense. It puts things in a different perspective, which brings me back to my original question: "why did he have to be?". The answer is, "he had to be, so that he could die." And, as you have written, the reason for his death may be to solidify the bond between Harry and Neville. Good work. Now AP: Does anybody else out there think Neville may know about the prophecy? This thought first occurred to me while reading the fight scene in the DoM - Neville was *so* passionate about Harry not giving the prophecy to the DE, even when he was faced with the Cruciatus Curse. Of course, it could be that he was just beside himself with adreneline, or maybe it is that he just didn't want the DE to get whatever it is they wanted. But it *might* be because he knew what was at stake. When the prophecy was made, DD didn't know whether it referred to the Potters or the Longbottoms, so he probably put protections in place for both families, meaning the Longbottoms (including Granny, I guess) would know about the prophecy and its contents. I just wonder if Granny has told Neville. She apparently discusses matters related to LV with Neville, since he tells Harry in OoP, "My gran says that's rubbish. . . .We believe Harry. My gran's always said You-Know-Who would come back one day. She says if DD says he's back, he's back" (p. 219). And we know Neville is mighty good at keeping a secret. What difference would it make? Building on the idea of the posts by Ginger and Entrophy, it might provide another link between the two boys that would deepen their relationship. Maybe Neville could help Harry process the whole "responsibility for protecting the WW" burden. AP From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 19:53:36 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:53:36 -0000 Subject: Why it was necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89620 After reading my theory about the HP/N,F,AL/SB/BL connection, David asked: > Can you explain what you mean by something being 'necessary' in the > series? > > For myself, I don't know if it was necessary that Sirius die. I can > speculate as to the author's purpose in killing off this character, > and then as to whether that purpose could have been achieved any > other way. Even if the answer is no, that doesn't prove necessity, > because of the place of that purpose in the author's wider aims. > > Please understand I'm not knocking the concept. I just feel it > needs a bit more definition. > Ginger replies: You are absolutely right when you say it could be done another way. JKR could have come up with any number of ways, half of them probably in her sleep;) What I meant by "necessary" was that it was necessary to get from point A to point B. This was simply the way she chose to do it. Let me explain. She starts with Harry and Neville as roomies. They know each other, but until Harry becomes privy to Neville's past via the penseive, they are never really that close. Harry barely thinks of him at all unless he is right there. He is merely Neville, the Toadless Boy. The readers see him that way as well. The first 3 1/2 books are Point A. They are aware of each other. Point B, which we need to reach, is them working closely together, more or less as equals. The penseive is step one of the journey. The meeting in St. Mungo's draws Neville closer, as Harry sees his Gran's relationship with Neville's parents as well. Bellatrix's release spurs Neville on, and his improvement in DA is also noticed by Harry, and so, the readers. If it were left there, without Sirius dying, it would be a one-sided pity. Harry would feel for Neville, but Neville would have no reason to reach out to Harry. With Sirius dying, Harry is now in the position to be pitied, and Neville rises to the occasion. To be honest, the picture of Neville struggling to get to Harry to offer condolences is one of the most touching scenes in the books. IMHO, of course. So now we have them on a more even level. Both have been hurt, which could have happened any number of ways, but both have been hurt *by the same person*. That's where a stronger unity comes in. That's what is at the heart of my theory. Oodles of people have been hurt by LV. But these two share the Bellatrix connection. There we are at point B. Not yet, though. They haven't had the chance to really talk it out, but they are well on their way. Neville has always been the one helped by Harry and his friends. Now Neville has something to offer to Harry. This is all bunk if Neville doesn't have a more active role in the next two books, but as much as he has been around, I have a feeling that the WW will not remember him as "The Boy Who Lost His Toad". Hope that clears it up, Ginger From fredwaldrop at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 19:59:14 2004 From: fredwaldrop at yahoo.com (Fred Waldrop) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:59:14 -0000 Subject: Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89621 Hitomi now: Hey guys! Anyway, I KNOW there is a quote in the books SOMEWHERE that states Katie is the same age as Alicia. I'm in the middle of looking for it, so give me time on that, but the Lexicon states Katie is the same age as Angelina and Alicia, meaning she graduated. Neri I actually raised this exact question about two months ago (I think) and got several answers but nobody who manage to find any canon regarding Katie's age. At the time I also ran a computerized search over all 5 books, finding any single case where the words "Katie" and "Bell" are mentioned, and couldn't find any reference to her age. ===================================================================== Hello all, Fred Waldrop here; (On page 507 & 508, OotP, UK, and 575 US) "You've been banned as long as Umbridge is in the school," Ginny correctected him. "There's a difference. Anyway, once you're back, I think I'll try out for Chaser. Angelina and Alicia are both leaving next year and I prefer goal-scoring to seeking anyway." So, it seems to me that if Katie was leaving also, wouldn't Ginny have said "Angelina, Alicia and Katie are leaving school next year"? But, that's just my opion, I could be wrong, what say you? Fred From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 20:09:25 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:09:25 -0000 Subject: What Does Neville Know? was Re: Why it was necessary: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89622 AP: > > Does anybody else out there think Neville may know about the > prophecy? > > This thought first occurred to me while reading the fight scene in > the DoM - Neville was *so* passionate about Harry not giving the > prophecy to the DE, even when he was faced with the Cruciatus > Curse. Of course, it could be that he was just beside himself with > adreneline, or maybe it is that he just didn't want the DE to get > whatever it is they wanted. But it *might* be because he knew what > was at stake. > > When the prophecy was made, DD didn't know whether it referred to > the Potters or the Longbottoms, so he probably put protections in > place for both families, meaning the Longbottoms (including Granny, > I guess) would know about the prophecy and its contents. I just > wonder if Granny has told Neville. She apparently discusses matters > related to LV with Neville, since he tells Harry in OoP, "My gran > says that's rubbish. . . .We believe Harry. My gran's always said > You-Know-Who would come back one day. She says if DD says he's > back, he's back" (p. 219). And we know Neville is mighty good at > keeping a secret. (snip) Maybe Neville could help > Harry process the whole "responsibility for protecting the WW" > burden. > Now Ginger: What a great thought! I had only thought of the connection being a bond that would play out in battle-kind of watching each other's back. I hadn't thought of the fact that Neville, being the other "prophecy boy" and raised in the WW, would have vital information for Harry. All those times when we want to bean Harry for not asking questions! Neville may have some of the answers, at least as far as the prophecy is concerned. This new bond between them would be the catalyst for Neville opening up to Harry. With Neville's low self esteem, he likely would have been hesitant about sharing, and Harry, with his pride, would have been hesitant about asking, like they were with the Gillyweed. Harry only asks his closest friends for their input, but ignores Neville as a source of information. Now Neville is poised to be included in that inner circle. And, yes, I got the same reaction from reading Neville's insistance about the prophecy. He *knows* something! Oh, this opens up the door for a *lot* of answers! Thanks, AP! Ginger, also thanking Entropy for the kind words of support. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 20:13:38 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:13:38 -0000 Subject: Next year's Quidditch (was: Re: Ginny Weasley) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89623 > Hitomi now: > Hey guys! Anyway, I KNOW there is a quote in the books SOMEWHERE > that states Katie is the same age as Alicia. I'm in the middle of > looking for it, so give me time on that, but the Lexicon states > Katie is the same age as Angelina and Alicia, meaning she > graduated. > > Neri > I actually raised this exact question about two months ago (I think) > and got several answers but nobody who manage to find any canon > regarding Katie's age. At the time I also ran a computerized search > over all 5 books, finding any single case where the words "Katie" > and "Bell" are mentioned, and couldn't find any reference to her > age. > > Fred Waldrop here; > > (On page 507 & 508, OotP, UK, and 575 US) > "You've been banned as long as Umbridge is in the school," Ginny > correctected him. "There's a difference. Anyway, once you're back, I > think I'll try out for Chaser. Angelina and Alicia are both leaving > next year and I prefer goal-scoring to seeking anyway." > So, it seems to me that if Katie was leaving also, wouldn't Ginny > have said "Angelina, Alicia and Katie are leaving school next year"? > But, that's just my opion, I could be wrong, what say you? Neri again: Yes, we are aware of this canon. This is what started the whole problem because before that everybody including the lexicon were sure Katie is in the same year with the other chasers. It is possible JKR/Ginny just neglected to mention Katie here, but it is also possible everybody was wrong the whole time and Katie is a year younger than Angelina and Alicia. We are looking for any additional canon regarding this question. Neri Neri From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Jan 25 21:18:16 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:18:16 +0000 Subject: Choices - or not. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89624 For all that Dumbledore whitters on about how choices define us, you'll notice that he never offers any to Harry. Using carefully selected half-truths and emotional blackmail he manoeuvres Harry into his next pre-selected spot on the game board. Only once has Harry defied DD's specific instructions and that ended with Sirius taking his final curtain. Assuming, that is, that DD didn't foresee the result of the antipathy between Harry and Snape. But DD still ended up ahead: Sirius (a serious distraction to Harry) has gone and Harry is in a suitably emotional state, ready for the next bit of subtle manipulation. Even better, Harry can see what happens when he ignores Dumbledore - call it aversion therapy. It all started at the beginning of book 1, appropriately enough. Dump Harry on a family that hate his guts, come back in eleven years and guess how grateful he is to escape! Give him a replacement for the Dursleys (Snape, who knows exactly what he is doing and why) and his actions and attitudes can be nicely predicted. Especially when you feed him stories of his parents vs. the bogeyman as examples to be admired. How long can this go on? Not much longer, IMO. Dumbledore has groomed Harry to become Voldys!Bane; he is *the* weapon that might succeed in winning the war for the forces of good. And weapons don't normally get a choice in how or when they are used. But in giving his weapon a keen edge, DD has to give Harry the powers and knowledge necessary for the fight ahead. And Harry is showing signs of beginning to baulk; he is not a happy bunny, he wants out. He wants choices. Persuasion may no longer be so effective, but Dumbledore still has a few levers - Harry's friends. Loyalty is a big thing to Harry and it can be made to work in DD's favour. More emotional blackmail, but this time applied indirectly; the Weasleys, Hermione, Neville. DD's fifth column. Ever heard them question Dumbledore's reasons or motives? Neither have I. Even so, I think we can expect Harry to turn stroppy; he'll twist and turn trying to avoid the path that DD has placed him on and eventually he'll make another choice of his own. It will probably be offered by an unexpected source that Harry thinks means well, and of course it will be a disaster, probably resulting in more deaths (my money is on DD himself, though a culling of the Weasleys is quite possible). I'm cheerfully anticipating a fraught and gloomy book 6. Kneasy From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 22:07:34 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:07:34 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: Meri: > I believe Sherrie is right about this. In SS, when they go to the > zoo for Dudley's birthday and Harry gets in trouble for freeing the > boa constrictor, Harry is given a major punnishment, and when he is > finally released from the cupboard under the stairs the shcool > hollidays have started. So Dudley's birthday must be at least in > June. Geoff: Not necessarily. The standard end of term in the UK is about the third weekend in July - last year, it was 19/07/03. As you say, we are told in PS that "by the time he was allowed out of his cupboard again, the summer holidays had started and Dudley had already broken his new cine-camera, crashed his remote-control aeroplane and, first time on his racing bike, knocked down old Mrs.Figg as she crossed Privet Drive on her crutches." (PS "The Letters from No One" p.28 UK edition). How long would it take a great lummox like Dudley to smash his cine camera? Or crash his aeroplane? No long I guess. Seriously though, it could have been early July. I think the fact remains that he was definitely not born "as the seventh month dies". From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 22:16:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:16:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89626 Lupin's vampire essay has been cited as evidence that Snape is a vampire, but the essay shows has nothing to do with Snape. It has already been assigned before Snape tries to stop Harry from sneaking into Hogsmeade. The fact that Harry and Neville are discussing it when Snape shows up (clearly suspecting that the humpbacked witch hides a secret entrance into Hogsmeade) is pure coincidence (PoA 276-77), as is Lupin's use of the essay as an excuse to talk to Harry in the hall (PoA 289). An essay on ghouls or ogres or any other creature associated with the Dark Arts would have served the same purpose. Why, then, should the essay be about vampires? The answer is the structure of Professor Lupin's class and of the textbook he is using. According to the Lexicon calendar, which I'm using to determine dates here, the essay is assigned at a time when the class would naturally be studying vampires. The references to the essay cited above occur on Saturday February 12, meaning that the essay must have been assigned during the week of Feb. 7-11--more than three months after Snape assigned the werewolf essay on February 5. Lupin's vampire essay, therefore, can't be an act of retaliation for Snape's werewolf essay. Lupin is merely going through the book chapter by chapter and has reached the point where the class is studying vampires. A closer examination shows that the book progresses from moderately dangerous to extremely dangerous Dark Creatures (or beings). As Hermione tells Snape, the first eight weeks have been devoted to boggarts, Red Caps, kappas, and grindylows (170). The class is about to start on hinkypunks (186) when Snape takes over and makes the class read about werewolves instead. Werewolves, the most dangerous creatures/beings in the book, are in "the very back chapter" (171). It stands to reason that vampires, being nearly as dangerous as werewolves (the MoM seems to be determined to wipe them out of existence) would also be near the back of the book, along with (say) mummies, banshees, zombies, and hags, with such intermediate creatures as ogres, giants, and trolls filling up the ten weeks (not counting vacation) between hinkypunks and vampires. Significantly, the vampire essay is assigned only about six weeks before the Easter holidays, when the students begin reviewing for their exams. Considering Lupin's average of two weeks per creature, there is room in the schedule for vampires, two unnamed creatures, and werewolves before the holidays. In other words, the vampire essay is assigned exactly when it should be, with no connection to Snape whatever. Incidentally (and this has nothing to do with my vampire essay argument), I'm wondering whether Doxies and the other pests that the Weasleys et al. encounter in cleaning up 12 Grimauld Place in OoP should have been covered in Harry's second year (along with Cornish pixies) if they'd had a competent DADA teacher. Also it's interesting that hippogriffs and blast-ended skrewts are considered "interestin'" magical creatures to be cared for rather than Dark Beings to be defended against. I suppose that at Hogwarts they're considered to be beasts and therefore not responsible for the danger they present to wizards (unlike the MoM, which considers Buckbeak as a criminal worthy of execution for injuring an underage wizard). I'm wondering where really dangerous beasts, such as dragons, acromantulas, and especially basilisks, would fit in. Are they magical creatures to be cared for or Dark Beasts to be exterminated? (The MoM and Hogwarts seem to have differing views on this point.) And would ghouls, ghosts, and poltergeists, which so far appear to be relatively harmless (annoying, in Peeves's case, but not dangerous) be included in the third year DADA textbook? They seem to fit in the middle chapters of the book--beings rather than beasts so they belong in DADA, not CoMC, and more dangerous than hinkypunks but less dangerous than vampires. But I'm guessing that ghosts as former wizards are probably excluded from the text. I can just hear Sir Nick's reaction. ("Dark Creatures, indeed!") Carol, who has spent way too much time on this post! From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 22:30:34 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:30:34 -0000 Subject: Stockwell Orphanage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: Carolyn: > Geoff, a further point on location. As you will have gathered, I > wouldn't choose Baptist history as my starter for 10 on Mastermind, > but a faint bell has just rung in my head about the Welsh Baptists, > as a well-known and vocal part of your church. > > There are so many Welsh threads in the series, not least about > Godric's Hollow, dragons, green eyes etc etc.. could this be another? > Is Little Hangleton on the Welsh border perhaps ? Geoff: The Baptist church in England is very widespread and is one of the strongest of the UK non-Conformist churches. It is a bit thin on the ground in Devon and Cornwall - the Wesleys got there first :-) - but usually there are a number of churches in most areas. The Welsh Baptists tend to be a bit of a law unto themselves and are very independently minded. I would have doubts as to whether, if seeking an orphanage for someone like young Tom, they would go to an English institution in London. There has been discussion on Little Hangleton. Some folk place it in the north. If you drew a 200 mile radius circle round Little Whinging which folk place in the northern bit of Surrey, it could include parts of Wales. My own view, for what it's worth, is that it is in the West Country. I've said before that the pub name - "The Hanged Man" - resonates with me as being a relic of the West Country Monmouth Rebellion of 1685. I may be totally wrong; it's just a gut feeling. There is no other data to draw on. The only Hangeltons listed in a road gazeteer are around Brighton on the south coast of Sussex and a mere 50 miles from London. From belijako at online.no Sun Jan 25 23:02:27 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:02:27 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89628 daw wrote: who does Mark Evans the 10-year-old live with in Little Whinging? Whizbang wrote: Good question. Hmmmmm..... Maybe he doesn't live there. Berit replies: Mark Evans lives in Little Whinging, no doubt about that. How else would Harry know the full name and age of a small boy he thinks is a Muggle, if he has never seen him around before? Mark has to have been around for "ages"; after all, Harry is not the kind of boy who walks around memorizing names for the sake of it; there seems to be loads of students at Hogwarts he doesn't know the name of... Berit From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 23:24:29 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:24:29 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Lupin's vampire essay has been cited as evidence that Snape is a > vampire, but the essay shows has nothing to do with Snape. It has > already been assigned before Snape tries to stop Harry from sneaking > into Hogsmeade. "K" Yes, but it was assigned after the werewolf incident. Carol: >The fact that Harry and Neville are discussing it when > Snape shows up (clearly suspecting that the humpbacked witch hides a > secret entrance into Hogsmeade) is pure coincidence (PoA 276-77), as > is Lupin's use of the essay as an excuse to talk to Harry in the hall "K" I guess that all depends on how we read it. What a coincidence that Snape was around when Neville is talking about vampires. What a coincidence that Lupin brings up that essay in front of Snape. Coincidence? Not at all. Carol: > Lupin is merely going through the book chapter by chapter and has > reached the point where the class is studying vampires. "K" I don't know if we can really say that. Carol: > Incidentally (and this has nothing to do with my vampire essay > argument), "K" Vampire essay argument? What? Do you doubt? ;-) Guess I'd better hurry up with my pro-half/vampire essay. Now if I can just find what I did with it. Carol: Carol, who has spent way too much time on this post! "K" Nah. I love it when someone brings up the vampire bit and those other creatures. From kcawte at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 26 08:08:32 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:08:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crazy thought...... References: Message-ID: <000c01c3e3e3$972d0fe0$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89630 > > Berit replies: > > Mark Evans lives in Little Whinging, no doubt about that. How else > would Harry know the full name and age of a small boy he thinks is a > Muggle, if he has never seen him around before? Mark has to have been > around for "ages"; after all, Harry is not the kind of boy who walks > around memorizing names for the sake of it; there seems to be loads > of students at Hogwarts he doesn't know the name of... > K But do we know exactly how Harry knows about Dudley and his pals beating up ten year old Mark? He can't have seen it himself - pointless as getting involved may well have been when Dudley was with his gang, I can't really see Harry just walking on by and not trying to help the boy. So if he didn't see it he must have got the information from somewhere else, possibly he overheard Dudley and co bragging about it to someone or to each other even, in which case he could have got the boy's name and age from that conversation and *not* have already known it. In which case your argument has a fatal flaw in it. It wouldn't surprise me if the kid lived a little bit outside of LW - Dudley and gang are cowards after all, far better to beat someone up if you can be certain that his father/friends/brothers/whoever else cares and is bigger than the bullies comes along and sees it. K From steve at hp-lexicon.org Mon Jan 26 00:10:41 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:10:41 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > As you say, we are told in PS that "by the time he was allowed out of > his cupboard again, the summer holidays had started and Dudley had > already broken his new cine-camera, crashed his remote-control What is actually says is "his month-old cine-camera," which tells us that Dudley's birthday is about a month before Harry's. If we accept that Harry was born in 1980, Dudley's birthday would be June 22. It is certainly right around that date. Steve Vander Ark The Lexicon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 00:43:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:18 -0000 Subject: Producing a Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89632 sachmet96 wrote: > Harry was not able to produce a Patronus while > practicing, some of the others on the other hand were able to do > just that (Cho if I remember correctly). > > I was refering to Harry's own lessons with Lupin in POA where he > didn't produce a patronus correctly. The others were able to produce > one in their lessons in DA. At that time (OOtP) Harry was able to > produce a patronus but not for his own lessons in POA. > Hope that clears that up. The others were learning to produce a patronus without a dementor/boggart to drain them of all strength and hope. And dementors affect Harry worse than anyone else because none of the students (except possibly Neville) have the horrors in their past that he does. They don't hear their mother's screams as she's about to die. That (and the strange, perverse desire to hear his parents' voices) is what hinders Harry when he's learning to produce a patronus. When Hermione, probably the most talented student in the school, is faced with a real dementor, she can't produce a patronus. Harry can at least produce a silvery fog and he stays conscious longer than either Hermione or Sirius (who is not, to be sure, at the top of his form).When Lupin says that producing a patronus is very advanced magic, he's not talking about doing it in the Room of Requirement in the presence of your fellow students. He's talking about doing it by yourself facing a dementor (or a dementor/boggart, which has the same effect). Harry learns to produce his boggart under very harrowing conditions--and that (plus the knowledge that he really can produce one) is what makes his patronus, when he produces one, real and effective. To be sure, he was across the lake from the dementors in PoA, but in OoP they're near enough to touch both him and Dudley. I don't think anyone else in the DA would have survived an encounter like the one Harry faces in Little Whinging. Harry is good at the types of magic he wants to learn and those that come naturally to him, most notably flying. He is less good when he allows mental or emotional obstacles to block him, notably hatred or distrust of Snape and desire to see what's in the locked room, both of which prevent him from learning occlumency. It isn't that he lacks aptitude; it's attitude that prevents him. Where there's no such hindrance, as in Flitwick's charms class, he's as good as or better than most of the students. But where he excels, and what Dumbledore means when he calls Harry exceptional, is in courage and determination--and occasionally, like Sirius and possibly James, in stubborn recklessness. Part of growing up, for him, will be learning the difference. Another part will be learning to control his emotions and to avoid yielding to the temptations to use the methods of the enemy (unforgiveable curses) to defeat the enemy. I have no doubt that he'll learn both lessons. (Maybe he'll even learn to judge Snape less harshly, but maybe not. He's human, after all.) Carol P.S. As for the idea suggested elsewhere of Harry being "ruthless" at the end of SS/PS because he doesn't inquire about Quirrell, Harry is at that point still eleven years old; he has just returned to consciousness after being in deadly peril and has a lot of other (to him) more pressing questions; and Quirrell has just tried to kill him, hardly a reason to be concerned for his welfare. I think that Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort left Quirrell to die is all Harry needs or wants to hear at that point. (It doesn't help the reader much, I admit!) From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 26 01:08:35 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:08:35 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: <000c01c3e3e3$972d0fe0$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89633 Berit claimed: Mark Evans lives in Little Whinging, no doubt about that. How else would Harry know the full name and age of a small boy he thinks is a Muggle? K wrote: But do we know exactly how Harry knows about Dudley and his pals beating up ten year old Mark? He can't have seen it himself - pointless as getting involved may well have been when Dudley was with his gang, I can't really see Harry just walking on by and not trying to help the boy. So if he didn't see it he must have got the information from somewhere else. In which case your argument has a fatal flaw in it. It wouldn't surprise me if the kid lived a little bit outside of LW - Dudley and gang are cowards after all, far better to beat someone up if you can be certain that his father/friends/brothers/whoever else cares and is bigger than the bullies comes along and sees it. Berit replies: Well, your objection has flaws too :-) Whether Dudley and his gang are cowards or not, it doesn't stop them from bullying the kids in their own streets: Quote: "Neighbouring children all around were terrified of him [Dudley] - even more terrified than they were of 'that Potter boy' who, they had been warned, was a hardened hooligan and attended St Brutus's Secure Centre for Incurably Criminal Boys." (OoP p. 15) Dudley and his gang are beating up neighbourhood children. Of course it's possible to argue that it doesn't say these children were VERY CLOSE neighbourhood children, but to me that is a bit silly. The simple way of understanding this passage is that Dudley & Co. terrorize their neighbourhood (and we know they have done so for a long time). So Mark being being beaten up AND living in Little Whinging is not a contradiction. I guess it would not be in tune with Harry's character to walk by and not intervene if he caught Dudley and his gang beating up a defenseless child. Of course I could argue that since Harry is not allowed to use magic in the Muggle world, he wisely refrains from rescue missions (without the magic, the only thing Harry would accomplish anyway would be to be beaten to a pulp himself); also HP history so far has shown us a Harry that's bullied and beaten up by Dudley and his gang just as much as any other Little Whinging child, so he might not be in the mood to get too close to them. What we've seen so far of Harry's summer holidays, he's not too into what Dudley and his gang are up to; just trying to keep out of their way as much as possible. But I accept that Harry might not have been an eyewitness to the incident himself but might have overheard Dudley and his gang bragging about it (I don't think any of the children of Little Whinging told Harry; after all they believe he is a dangerous criminal and won't be on friendly, talkative terms with him any day soon :-). But then I think it's odd that Harry would have remembered the full name (!) and age of this kid that's completely unknown to him, just after overhearing his name being spoken once. What's the chance of Harry caring what this little kid's name and age are? If Harry just overheard the story of Dudley beating up this, to him unknown but named child, why did he bother to "memorize" and later speak of him by his full name? -When he doesn't even know/remember the names of a lot of Hogwarts students that he has been living with for several years? Reading the text straightforward, I think it's safe to assume that Harry knows ten year old Mark Evans as one of the neighbourhood children of Little Whinging. It would be twisting the passage to read something else into it: Quote:"'So who've you been beating up tonight?' Harry asked, his grin fading. 'Another ten-year-old? I know you did Mark Evans two nights ago -'" (OoP p. 17) This sounds like someone knowing fully well who he's talking about... Just my humble opinion :-) Berit From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 26 01:14:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:14:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: The fact that Harry and Neville are discussing it when Snape shows up (clearly suspecting that the humpbacked witch hides asecret entrance into Hogsmeade) is pure coincidence (PoA 276-77), as is Lupin's use of the essay as an excuse to talk to Harry in the hall(PoA 289). An essay on ghouls or ogres or any other creature associated with the Dark Arts would have served the same purpose. << But it is JKR who decides what creatures should be referred to, and she chose vampires. That may be a random thought of hers. Or not. In any case, werewolves are mentioned by Fake!Moody in his list of what was covered last year, while vampires are not. Carol: >> Why, then, should the essay be about vampires? The answer is the structure of Professor Lupin's class and of the textbook he is using. According to the Lexicon calendar, which I'm using to determine dateshere, the essay is assigned at a time when the class would naturally be studying vampires. The references to the essay cited above occur on Saturday February 12, meaning that the essay must have been assigned during the week of Feb. 7-11--more than three months after Snape assigned the werewolf essay on February 5. Lupin's vampire essay, therefore, can't be an act of retaliation for Snape's werewolf essay.<< Why not? Retaliation need not be immediate. Some prefer revenge served cold. Carol: > Lupin is merely going through the book chapter by chapter and has reached the point where the class is studying vampires. > > A closer examination shows that the book progresses from moderately dangerous to extremely dangerous Dark Creatures (or beings). As Hermione tells Snape, the first eight weeks have been devoted to boggarts, Red Caps, kappas, and grindylows (170). vampires would also be near the back of the book, along with (say) mummies, banshees, zombies, and hags, with such intermediate creatures as ogres, giants, and trolls filling up the ten weeks (not counting vacation) between hinkypunks and vampires. Significantly, the vampire essay is assigned only about six weeks before the Easter holidays, when the students begin reviewing for their exams. Considering Lupin's average of two weeks per creature, there is room in the schedule forvampires, two unnamed creatures, and werewolves before the holidays. > > In other words, the vampire essay is assigned exactly when it should be, with no connection to Snape whatever.<< That's an interesting theory,but the class studies grindylows (only 2 X's) after pixies (XXX) in second year, and kappas (XXX). Lupin even says that they've done kappas already so the grindylows shouldn't be much trouble. Whatever the grand scheme is, it's not order of difficulty. We don't know why some of the creatures studied (hinkypunks and boggarts) are not mentioned in Fantastic Beasts. My theory is that they have been classed as Spirits. It's also not clear whether zombies or animated mummies even exist (see my published works). I suspect the distinction between Dark creatures and others is at heart political and philosophical and has no basis in magizoology at all. IIRC, Scamander does not use it. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 01:39:23 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:39:23 -0000 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy King" wrote: > "lizvega2" wrote: > >I was rereading some random JK interviews, and in one quote she said > >that someone very late in life (no specific age given), who has > >never shown any ability for magic previously, will be able to do > >magic in very desperate conditions. > > > >I'm sure it's been discussed, but anyone have a thought on who this > >could be? > > > >Obviously a few names come to mind: Petunia, Dudley, Filch or Mrs > >Figg. >>> > > > I've been waiting for someone to bring up the subject of the Dursleys. Aunt > Petunia at the very least has to be a squib that is hiding the fact that she > can do a bit of magic, her very, very clean kitchen is mentioned many times > and especially when Tonks replies that "it's a bit too clean, d'you know what > I mean? Bit unnatural." > > As far as Dudley I feel he must be a wizard that has been protected from > knowing this fact by being pacified dramatically so that he is not upset and > does not unintentionally show the signs that come out with rage. Mrs. Figg > is a squib and although she told the ministry she saw the dementors she told > Harry that Mr.Tibbles alerted her. Muggles on the other hand get a feeling > of despair but can't see them. Dudley felt and described through Harry the > dementors. This is actually what I think DD and Petunia are keeping secret > about their pact. Petunia would take Harry as long as DD doesn't send a > letter of acceptance to Hogwarts for Dudley. > > "Kathy King" Although we can doubt statements made from Harry's point of view, the statement "they were Muggles" is made about all of the Dursleys in every book, including chapter one of SS/PS which is not written from Harry's point of view because he has not yet been born. Nor is that statement from Mr. Dursley's point of view; he doesn't yet know what a Muggle is. Also in a passage I've quoted at least twice and don't have time to look up again now (sorry), JKR herself has explained how Lily and Petunia's Muggle parents could have one daughter who was a witch and one who was a Muggle. Squibs, she says in the same passage, are non-magical children born into an otherwise magical family, so Petunia by definition can't be a squib. As for Dudley being magical, he would have exhibited signs like those Harry exhibited at age ten and younger if he had any magic in him at all. One other thing: Dudley can't be the person who learns magic "late in life": he'll be all of seventeen in Book 7. Even Petunia is probably only in her late thirties or early forties; I doubt that she's much older than Lily. That's middle-aged, not old. The only two nonmagical people who have much chance of displaying magical talent "late in life" are Mrs. Figg and Filch, both Squibs and both, as far as we can tell, considerably more advanced in years than Petunia. I doubt if anyone wants to see Filch acquire magical powers, but Mrs. Figg (who has already shown that she can see Dementors and communicate with cats) is a member of the Order. I have a feeling we're going to see more of her--and that her maiden name, which she revealed to the MoM but not to us, may be significant. McGonagall? Dumbledore? I'll be interested in finding out. As for Petunia, she clearly does have some secret bargain with Dumbledore, but he would never have agreed to keep a magical child out of Hogwarts. It has to be something else. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 01:48:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:48:56 -0000 Subject: Ron is like Percy (plus more Weasley thoughts) In-Reply-To: <00c601c3df67$dadf5200$5902a8c0@aoldsl.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89636 Debbie wrote: > Another sign that I noticed yesterday appears in PoA. Everyone except Molly and Percy (Harry included) laughed at the twins' Humongous Bighead joke. But later, when the twins show Harry the Head Boy badge that they had "improved" to read "Bighead Boy" the text states that Harry's laugh was forced. But a phrase like this is easy to miss, especially when OOP states explicitly that Harry liked Percy less than the rest of the Weasleys. Carol: Harry's laugh is forced because he has something much more significant on his mind--he's just heard Molly and Arthur saying that Sirius Black wants to murder him. The twins' mischief, which he might have thought funny an hour before, is revealed as insignificant, immature nonsense by this incident--at least to the reader. I don't think Harry's view of them is altered by it at all. He still likes the twins--and ends up giving them his winnings from the Tri-Wizard Tournament to start their joke shop. Carol, who hopes we'll see the twins grow up a little now that they're out of Hogwarts From RACH911 at aol.com Sun Jan 25 16:23:16 2004 From: RACH911 at aol.com (rach9112000) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:23:16 -0000 Subject: Neville Theories. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89637 There has been quite a bit of recent discussions about Neville recently and his role in the books. I gave my theory that Neville's experience of death was not actually his grandad as he tells Umbridge in OotP chp 21 (pg 449-US version). There is much more canon than I originally thought supporting the Neville theory such as his reaction to the veil (chp 34, US version pg 775) and to the dementors (PoA chp5, Uk version pg 66)and of course his appearance to be a victim of a severe memory charm. I have found another piece of canon which perhaps could be another hint from JKR (in OotP chp23 Us version pg 513). It is where Harry, Ron, Ginny and Hermione bump into Neville visiting his parents at St. Mungo's with his gran (Mrs. Longbottom). "And you two are clearly Weasleys," Mrs. Longbottom continued, profferring her hand regally to Ron and Ginny in turn. "Yes, I know your parents - not well, of course - but fine people, fine people..." Neville's gran obviously regards Mr. and Mrs. Weasley with the upmost respect but i question why she slipped in "not well, of course". I read into this that she knows them better than she is letting on. It's almost as though she slipped up and had to recover by saying "not well, of course". OTOH it could merely be that she doesn't know them very well. But IMO it appears that the Longbottoms and Weasleys want to give the impression to people that they don't know each other very well. This leads me to question why Mrs. Longbottom has not been recruited to be a member of The Order. We know that Nevilles parents were members of the original Order. We also know from Neville that he and his gran are in full support of Harry and also believe that Voldemort is back (OotP Chp11 - US version pg219). It just seems strange that The Order are so desperate for members and gaining support and that Neville's gran is obviously anti-Voldemort. I haven't as yet taken the time to work out how this could fit into all our hypothesised Neville theories but I do wonder if Neville's gran is protecting Neville in some way and what information she knows. Also as an end note, I wonder what information Neville knows (or once knew before the memory charm) that Voldemort could have access to through Legilimency and if this is the reason for the protection Neville's gran appears to be providing Neville. Rachel From changelingdragon2003 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 16:58:15 2004 From: changelingdragon2003 at yahoo.com (changelingdragon2003) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:58:15 -0000 Subject: houses and the sorting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89638 I'm new here, so I apologise if this has already been discussed. I did try to check that it hasn't. I was thinking about the houses, and in the first book being sorted by personality seems a charming idea, but by book five it is starting to seem sinister and even the sorting hat is unhappy. The sorting certainly causes problems, mainly to do with rivalries. Gryffindor and Slytherin especially seem to be at each others throats. Some of the teachers seem to join in with this rivalry, notably Snape although even McGonnagal fails to give the Gryffindors homework when they have a quidditch match coming up, and that surely can't be a good thing. Even the DA has no Slytherin members, and I would have expected the Slytherins to be very interested in learning jinxes. I suppose they didn't want to join something Harry had started - or Hermione never told them about it. I do think the houses should learn to work together - surely all Slytherins can't be bad. One thing I was wondering is why the founders thought it necessary to split the students in this manner, while alive they split them in to those they prefered to teach, but why carry it on once they are dead? Did they think it would be good for children to grow up close only to those who share their own strengths and weaknesses? If so I disagree. Does anyone have any theories as to why the founders wanted things to continue in this manner? I apologise for rambling. Changeling. From ada_tam at hotpop.com Mon Jan 26 00:38:32 2004 From: ada_tam at hotpop.com (ainira999) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:38:32 -0000 Subject: FILK: Prima Donna (from Phantom of the Opera) *long* Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89639 [Please note a lot of the singing overlaps, so it's best to listen to the song and/or look at the original lyrics :)] Scene: Following Sirius' death, Harry is unable to cope and is on the verge of suicide. However, if Harry dies, there is no chance of defeating Voldemort. ALBUS DUMBLEDORE The Order NEEDS you! REMIS LUPIN WE need you, too! HARRY POTTER (vehement) I would much rather DIE than fight your little wars for you! ALBUS/LUPIN Harry, no! We care for you! (ALBUS and LUPIN adopt their most persuasive attitudes) ALBUS/LUPIN Mister Potter, first boy to survive AK! Your bravery, is telling me to assure you ALBUS Can you walk now from your loyal DA? LUPIN Think of how you're Griffindor too! BOTH Mister Potter, enchant us once again! ALBUS Think of the news LUPIN When the loser is Vol'mort! BOTH Will you defy him, the Dark Lord for sure? Live, Mister Potter, once more! (HARRY registers his acceptance as ALBUS and LUPIN continue to cajole and the OTHERS reflect variously on the situation) RON Harry spoke of Tom Riddle HARRY (to himself, in triumph) Harry Potter, the boy shall live again! ALBUS/LUPIN (to HARRY) Think of your parents! HARRY You have a scar, but there's no mark that will stop you! SYBIL TRELAWNY (to RON) He was cursed, the man who once was called Tom Riddle ALBUS/LUPIN (to HARRY) Those who see your spells, liken you to a Riddle! HARRY Think of their cries when Voldie is caught! RON Why does this Riddle want Harry ? ALBUS (to LUPIN) We get our prophecy LUPIN (to ALBUS) He risks his own life! HARRY Follow where the moonlight leads you! HERMIONE Is this ghost, Tom Riddle or You-Know-Who ? RON Riddle or You-Know-Who? ALBUS/LUPIN (aside) Needing Harry is a trial! TRELAWNY Merlin help you, those who doubt HARRY You'll spell again, and stop Death eating the nation! RON DE's! Visions! Life-sucking curtains! TRELAWNY This mis-scarred thing will invite damnation ALBUS/LUPIN Tears Lies Life-sucking curtains are regular occurrences! HERMIONE Death or salvation? Which will claim him ? HARRY Think how sun'll shine when that Riddle's no more Live, Mister Potter once more! TRELAWNY Oh fools, to have doubted my warnings! RON Surely, for HIS sake HERMIONE Surely he'll strike back ALBUS/LUPIN Surely there'll be troubled teens - worse than this! TRELAWNY Think, be sure that the death signs are detected! RON I must see these DE's are detected! HERMIONE if these threats mean dark arts are detected! ALBUS/LUPIN Who'd believe a see-er, able to foresee a baby boy who lived and lost his two parents? Trelawny's prophecy, is Harry's destiny Although he may deny, this is HIS path to fly HERMIONE/RON Harry must be protected! HARRY O, Alohamora! Wingardium Leviosa! ALBUS/LUPIN There's hardly more to milk, from this long-winded FILK But if it's loudly sung, and in a parseltongue It's just the sort of tale, that will never fail In fact a perfect musicale! RON This war is over! TRELAWNY This is a war you cannot hope to win! RON And in Book Six a new page will begin TRELAWNY For, if his curse is on Harry Potter HERMIONE But if his curse is on Harry Potter ALBUS/LUPIN Harry Potter, the world is in your hands! A nation waits, for all it hates be defeated! HARRY The stress that falls upon a famous Harry Potter! Terrible, be hexes, curses, scars that vexes Still, with sobbing dread, my throbbing head will lead me to the Dark Lord! HERMIONE/ TRELAWNY then I fear the outcome RON Harry plays the Seeker, Riddle plays the Dark Lord TRELAWNY should you dare to HERMIONE when you once again ALL Be this the day we defeat this Dark Lord! Live, Mister Potter, once more! LORD VOLDEMORT So, it is to be war between us! If this Potter is not dead, a disaster beyond your imagination will occur! ALL Once more! ~ Ada ~ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 02:13:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:13:46 -0000 Subject: Hermione's reliability (Was: Harry's compassion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89640 Del wrote And Harry has never been the translator of JKR's > feelings and opinions. Hermione and DD are, and they don't > necessarily hold the same feelings regarding all those characters as > Harry does. IIRC, JKR has indicated that we can trust Hermione when she's making factual statements. However, she often makes errors when she jumps from facts to interpretation. To give just one example, when she sees Winky in the woods apparently being restrained by some force, she says, "That Mr. Crouch made her go up to the top of the stadium, and she was terrified, and he's got her bewitched so she can't even run when they start trampling tents!" (GoF 125 Am. ed.). The first half of the sentence is a correct observation, the second half a faulty interpretation of an observed event. As for Hermione's emotions, she's an exaggerated version of JKR herself, which does not necessarily make her feelings "right" or "wrong." I think most of us agree that her compassion for the house-elves, however noble, leads her into patronizing and unwise actions like the hats and the aptly acronymed S.P.E.W. As for Dumbledore, she has referred to him as "the epitome of goodness," but he's also the epitome of ambiguity for Harry and for us. I'm at a point, actually, where I don't trust *anyone's* statements, including the narrator's, except in the rare moments when he/she is not inside anyone's head and is reporting events from an objective point of view. Carol, who apologizes for replying only to a small segment of your post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 02:28:23 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:28:23 -0000 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: <20040120164322.74585.qmail@web11306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89641 rolshan wrote: > Re pact, I will reiterate my theory that Petunia's > secret (one the exposure of which she fears enough to > keep Harry, one which explains her knowledge of the > magical world as being much more intimate than can be > otherwise explained) is that she was formerly married > to a wizard...perhaps one killed by Vmort, perhaps > someone we know -- Snape? OK very farfetched but... > > We know that muggles sometimes unknowingly marry > wizards or witches (both Voldemort and Seamus come > from unions like this, and Seamus' statement that his > dad did not know his mom was a witch until after the > wedding is stresse in the movie). We know Petunia was > not unattractive (physically) as Harry remarks how > much she looked like Lily (except for the eyes). > But would Snape, a Slytherin, marry a Muggle? Not to mention that he seems to have joined the DEs while still in his teens before going over to Dumbledore at about age twenty. If Petunia married a wizard, which I doubt, it wouldn't have been Snape--and with the (admittedly limited) knowledge of the WW that she acquired from her sister and "that awful boy" (James), she wouldn't have *unknowingly* married a wizard. In fact, she probably turned to Vernon Dursley as the most unwizardlike young man of her acquaintance. I don't doubt that Petunia has a secret, but I think it has to do with the murder of her parents by DEs--or worse, their being kissed by dementors. (I hope it isn't the second option, but she does know about dementors and, as I've argued elsewhere, she isn't a squib.) Carol From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 25 15:45:41 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:45:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: The Map and "true" identities (WAS Re: The MAP & Ron=DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040125154541.35186.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89643 Arya, about the names displayed on the Marauder's Map: > Obviously, this concept is up for > debate, but I think we know 'the Marauder's > Map never lies' (supposedly) and that if > polyjuice, which physically turns one person > into another doesn't fool the map, then it > likely has nothing to do with the "contrived" > identity of the person, but with the true > identity of the person. Anneli: But what is someone's 'true' identity or name? JK appears to name characters using the traditional method: children get first name and father's surname, women take husband's surname on marriage. So does the map show the name someone's parents gave them? Does it change how woman's name is shown when she gets married? Many people don't use the name they were born with - what if someone was adopted, would the map give the surname name of their biological father or their adoptive family? If someone legally changed their name would it then show up changed on the map? Anneli (who finds how people are named and name themselves a very interesting subject) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 03:12:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:12:17 -0000 Subject: Head Boy poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89645 Julie wrote: I've been out of the loop. What polls? I'd appreciate a post number or link, please. Julie Tcy responded: 2 new polls added recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171117 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171118 Carol: You forgot my little poll on who'll be Head Boy at Hogwarts during Harry's seventh year: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1171489 Carol, who is vainly attempting to figure out the numbering system for the polls P.S. If anyone wonders why two posts are missing, I deleted one because of a too-conspicuous typo and the other because of the forbidden topic in the subject line. (It's okay, List Elves. I'm not talking about sp***ming the p***s.) :-) From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 03:20:26 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:20:26 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Fred Waldrop" wrote: > Shrijana asks: > And does anyone know what Ginny is short for? I had always assumed > Virginia, but I've never found canon to support this. In past years on this board, it was pointed out that Guinivere was another possibility. (That fits in with the Arthurian names, while Virginia fits in with the symbolism...) Betta smaragdina From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 03:47:12 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:47:12 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville Theories. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89647 RACH911 at aol.com says: > Neville's gran obviously regards Mr. and Mrs. Weasley with the >upmost respect but i question why she slipped in "not well, of >course". I read into this that she knows them better than she is >letting on. It's almost as though she slipped up and had to recover >by saying "not well, of course". OTOH it could merely be that she >doesn't know them very well. But IMO it appears that the Longbottoms >and Weasleys want to give the impression to people that they don't >know each other very well. That's interesting and quite possible, but when I read it I assumed that Mrs. Longbottom simply meant that she knew the Weasley parents because they were at Hogwarts at the same time as her son Frank. > This leads me to question why Mrs. Longbottom has not been >recruited to be a member of The Order. We know that Nevilles parents >were members of the original Order. We also know from Neville that >he and his gran are in full support of Harry and also believe that >Voldemort is back (OotP Chp11 - US version pg219). It just seems >strange that The Order are so desperate for members and gaining >support and that Neville's gran is obviously anti-Voldemort. Well, come to think of it, how do we know she isn't a member of the Order? Are we certain that the only members are the ones we've seen? But I suspect that even if she were asked she might not accept. She already *has* a job to do against Voldemort -- protecting her grandson, and (possibly) protecting her son and daughter-in-law, who, if they ever show any signs of improvement, may well be in danger of ending up like whats-his-name, strangled by a potted plant. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 06:14:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:14:50 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040120215309.026cc450@mail.rhinobunny.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89648 > Derek wrote: > I predict that by the end of book 7, the WW's policy of remaining > separate from the Muggle World will end (either because it's no longer > practical or for some other reason), and that Arthur Weasley will > become Minister of Magic because he's viewed as the best person to > guide the WW into co-existence with Muggles... Carol responds: If HP were set in the distant future or a mythical past, I would expect a reconciliation or a new understanding between Muggles and the WW. But since it's set in the recent past, such a reconciliation would already have occurred by the year 2004, which it clearly has not or we'd be hearing about the WW on the nightly news. The problem (for me) is that JKR has gone to great lengths to explain to her Muggle audience why Muggles can't see giants or dragons or even the huge castle that houses Hogwarts. If the two groups were reconciled, she'd have to undo all those explanations and (theoretically) remove the charms around Hogwarts--but we Muggles still wouldn't be able to see it. Readers like me prefer to believe (or willingly suspend our disbelief) that we can't see the castle because it's enchanted. The alternative is to admit that it's imaginary. And where's the fun in that? I have no problem with Arthur Weasley as the Minister of Magic working in secret to stop anti-Muggle prejudice, but I can't see the other side of the equation--robed witches and wizards openly practicing magic on the streets of London. Granted, we can't expect realism in a fantasy series, nor do we want it, but we have the right to expect consistency and verisimilitude, both of which would be destroyed by a Muggle/WW reconciliation beyond the secret negotiations that already exist between the Minister of Magic and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Leave the enchantments, I say. Keep the WW hidden and mysterious so that only an occasional Muggle (like Hermione's parents) is invited in. Or write a sequel that occurs 150 years from now when Harry is an old man who helps a new young hero bring about the reconciliation between Muggles and the WW. It's impossible to plausibly depict it as occurring in a past that her readers have themselves recently experienced but at least somewhat plausible to do so in a future that her characters (but not her readers) will live to see. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 06:21:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:21:19 -0000 Subject: JKR chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89649 Arya wrote: > Know what I think? I think that on the March 4th chat with JKR, someone > should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm! Do I dare ask which March 4th chat you're referring to and whether we can access it? If so, let's please ask her which House (or Houses) MWPP were in and whether Snape is a Vampire and settle these questions once and for all! Carol From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 06:52:08 2004 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Lady Pensieve) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:52:08 -0000 Subject: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89650 --- Kneasy wrote: For all that Dumbledore whitters on about how choices define us, you'll notice that he never offers any to Harry. ---- Kathy - Gosh, at first I thought I had a comeback, then later in the post you say what I was thinking, that he's grooming Harry... well you didn't exactly say it that way, though. Let's see. Dumbledore knows that this kid's going to have to go through crap whether he wants to or not...therefore no choice for the kid. Dumbledore, however,has a choice. He can hand the kid over to a wizarding family and let him be treated like something special,or he can put him in a situation where he'll learn about prejudice and bullying first hand. Also,in book 7 we may discover that the scar is more than just a homing device for Voldy...it may also be there because of something Harry's parents-specifically his mom-did, perhaps with Dumbledore...that is added protection. Perhaps the real reason the scar burns is because it's protecting him. ---- Kneasy > Using carefully selected half-truths and emotional blackmail he > manoeuvres Harry into his next pre-selected spot on the game board. ---- Kathy - yeah,to give him the skills he couldn't get any other way. It wasn't just Harry's choice to go after the Sorceror's Stone, it was also Hermione's and Ron's. Aligning themselves with Harry, they were also put through their paces. Why, because if they're going to chose to be Harry's friends, they'll need experience as well. ---- Kneasy: Only once has Harry defied DD's specific instructions and that ended with Sirius taking his final curtain. ---- Kathy: And why is this Harry's fault? D had told Sirius to stay home. Also - does anyone think that Sirius may have been given a potion to help make him the git he was when he stood before Bellatrix begging her to try and hit him again because she missed the first time? Ch 18: " These plants are most efficacious in the inflaming of the brain, and are therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement Draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot- headedness and recklessness " ---- Kneasy: > How long can this go on? ---- Kathy: Unfortunately I don't believe D has told Harry everything. His last speech was far too long for me. There's more to know, only since we, the audience, can't be told just yet, neither can Harry- fooey! ---- > Kneasy:..And weapons don't normally get a choice in how or when they are used. ---- Kathy: One truth from D in the last - he has grown to care for him - why? Because Harry's heart allowed him to be so much more than a weapon...sounds like the Tin Man - Oh, My! ---- Kneasy: Harry is showing signs of beginning to baulk; he is not a happy bunny, he wants out. He wants choices. ---- Kathy: He's a teenager that hasn't had any fun. He needs some time off for good behavior! Actually, a little snogging wouldn't hurt at this point...er...shouldn't a said that. ---- Kneasy: Even so, I think we can expect Harry to turn stroppy; he'll twist and turn trying to avoid the path that DD has placed him on and eventually he'll make another choice of his own. ---- Kathy: I hope so! Isn't that the point? Let Harry learn to think for himself rather than be a good little boy and follow the rules? Where would Fred & George be if they'd followed the rules? ---- Kneasy: I'm cheerfully anticipating a fraught and gloomy book 6. ---- Kathy: Me too! and if a theory I read on another group is correct, we will have more about potions and poisons. One of the rumors is that Harry is going to have another kind of scar/hurt that will stay with him in book 6. Hope he paid attention when he wrote that essay on the Strength potion for Snape! From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 07:51:47 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:51:47 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: Steve Vander Ark: > What is actually says is "his month-old cine-camera," which tells us > that Dudley's birthday is about a month before Harry's. If we accept > that Harry was born in 1980, Dudley's birthday would be June 22. It > is certainly right around that date. Geoff: Sorry to disagree but my copy says "had already broken his /new/ cine- camera" (my emphasis). (PS "The Letters from No One" p.28 UK edition) From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 04:08:02 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:08:02 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > daw wrote: > who does Mark Evans the > 10-year-old live with in Little Whinging? > > Whizbang wrote: > > Good question. Hmmmmm..... Maybe he doesn't live there. > > Berit replies: > > Mark Evans lives in Little Whinging, no doubt about that. How else > would Harry know the full name and age of a small boy he thinks is > a Muggle, if he has never seen him around before? > Berit Whizbang: It does seem so obvious, but it's not carved in stone. He may have been there only a short time, or may actually live in a nearby community that borders Little Whinging. Harry may have overheard the name when he heard about Dudley beating him up. It's a difficult idea to encourage to gel, though, I admit. Whizbang121 From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 26 10:55:05 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:55:05 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? In-Reply-To: <75.213b7d33.2d44c7ee@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89653 Deanna wrote: <> Sherrie replied: << According to the official website, that's Madam Pince. NOT the way I pictured her... >> Sigune throws in: Well, I have always thought that if Snape were to be paired off with /anyone/ at all it might as well be with Madam Pince. Somehow I tend to think of Snape as a bookish person for whom the main attraction of his job at Hogwarts lies in the rare Dark Arts books held in the school library - and who should manage that library but Madam Pince? I can just imagine the two of them collaborating to tame one particularly vicious book Snape might wish to consult... (LOL) Ah well. In fact I can't imagine Snape having a love interest. I think he's strictly celibate - I don't think he cares or /wants/ to care about emotional attachments at all. He'd think it weakness. The design of Alan Rickman's clothes in the film only reinforces that idea - the frock coat has a clerical look to it. Nah, he's a scholar. He loves books and magic more than people. From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 11:09:01 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:09:01 -0000 Subject: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89654 Snape has been discussed to death on this group so probably this has been brought up at some point, too. I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? What would Snape have to lose by this arrangement? Nothing at all. He would have Dumbledore's unshared respect and trust and he would have a chance to prove him self worthy of it. Snape was already hated and ridiculed by the students so it wouldn't be much of a difference to him to have them despise him as well. And they did. I like the idea of Snape being sent in as a DE by Dumbledore. And if indeed this is the case - that only takes my admiration for Snape even higher. Inge From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 11:44:22 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:44:22 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: <000c01c3e3e3$972d0fe0$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" wrote: Berit: > > > > Mark Evans lives in Little Whinging, no doubt about that. How else > > would Harry know the full name and age of a small boy he thinks is a > > Muggle, if he has never seen him around before? Mark has to have been > > around for "ages"; after all, Harry is not the kind of boy who walks > > around memorizing names for the sake of it; there seems to be loads > > of students at Hogwarts he doesn't know the name of... K: > But do we know exactly how Harry knows about Dudley and his pals beating up > ten year old Mark? He can't have seen it himself - pointless as getting > involved may well have been when Dudley was with his gang, I can't really > see Harry just walking on by and not trying to help the boy. So if he didn't > see it he must have got the information from somewhere else, possibly he > overheard Dudley and co bragging about it to someone or to each other even, > in which case he could have got the boy's name and age from that > conversation and *not* have already known it. > > In which case your argument has a fatal flaw in it. It wouldn't surprise me > if the kid lived a little bit outside of LW - Dudley and gang are cowards > after all, far better to beat someone up if you can be certain that his > father/friends/brothers/whoever else cares and is bigger than the bullies > comes along and sees it. Geoff: There was a longish thread covering Mark Evans in considerable detail some time ago helping to cover points such as his possible relationship to Harry and the incident involving Dudley and his gang. Can I refer you to messages 85255, 85340, 85357, 85376, 85379 and 85490. I hope the Upthread facility hasn't left any out although it may continue beyond the last quoted number. From kking0731 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 12:59:25 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:59:25 -0500 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89656 Carol: I guess I took the phrase "late bloomer" not as much as being old but older than a normal wizard when they normally find out. As for the statement you made: >snip As for Dudley being magical, he would have exhibited signs like those Harry exhibited at age ten and younger if he had any magic in him at all. Kathy: This is moreless what I was referring to. In SS pg. 58 Harry tells Hagrid: "I think you must have made a mistake. I don't think I can be a wizard" Hagrid says "Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?" This is what I meant when I said that the Dursley's spoil Dudley so as to not allow him to get upset which could result in him showing signs of being magical. Just a thought. Kathy From entropymail at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 13:36:52 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:36:52 -0000 Subject: JKR chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Arya wrote: > > Know what I think? I think that on the March 4th chat with JKR, > someone > > should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm! > > > Do I dare ask which March 4th chat you're referring to and whether we > can access it? If so, let's please ask her which House (or Houses) > MWPP were in and whether Snape is a Vampire and settle these questions > once and for all! Here's a Bloomsbury link, which has a little info on the chat: http://www.bloomsbury.com/Childrens/news.asp?id=185&mscssid=DFBF2Q0FVBBW9LFDCTGEQGDX99PKFESA :: Entropy :: From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 26 14:05:12 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:05:12 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89658 Inge wrote: << Snape has been discussed to death on this group so probably this has been brought up at some point, too. I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? What would Snape have to lose by this arrangement? Nothing at all. He would have Dumbledore's unshared respect and trust and he would have a chance to prove him self worthy of it. Snape was already hated and ridiculed by the students so it wouldn't be much of a difference to him to have them despise him as well. And they did. I like the idea of Snape being sent in as a DE by Dumbledore. And if indeed this is the case - that only takes my admiration for Snape even higher.>> Sigune thinks: The more discussion of dear Severus, the better!! I have never read a theory like yours before, and it doesn't sound bad to me. Only - I think there still needs to be a stronger motive, something that binds Snape and Dumbledore together and that we don't know yet. Would Snape simply want Dumbledore's respect so badly that he would just risk his life and everything else for it? It is quite clear that as soon as a person joins the DE's s/he has to be prepared to give up - well - everything: their opinions, passions, ideals, physical integrity, even their movements are subordinated to Lord Thingy's wishes. That, it would seem to me, is quite a LOT to lose: your entire freedom. The Dark Mark is one of the means by which Thingy exerts his control: I think it is no coincidence that Snape is especially sensitive to the mentioning of Voldemort's name, even to the extent that it makes him really angry, a reaction that is not quite the same as Ron's (and other people's) whincing. And the Mark is permanent. I mean: joining the DE's for no deeper personal motives than just earning the respect of the headmaster of the school you attended seems a bit - drastic. There must be something else, because Snape had every reason to resent Dumbledore in the past. Why hasn't the good Headmaster acted more vigourously against Potter and Black, who bullied young Snape so cruelly? After the Prank he simply asked Snape to keep silent. And there is still the fact that Dumbledore isn't really sympathetic towards practitioners of the Dark Arts, whereas Snape is passionate about them. I think that one reason why Snape may have taken to Dumbledore is the Headmaster's philosophy of Choice. It is clear that Lord Thingy offers no choice to anyone: he bullies his followers into obedience or has them killed. This is not something you'd think would agree with Severus Snape. *AARGH* - so why did he join in the first place?? I think it must have been so he could learn more Dark Arts. But then he found himself bullied /yet again/ and went over to Dumbledore - by choice. He became a spy because there is no way anyone can walk out on Lord Thingy and keep their life. I am really, really curious to know what that extra bit in the Snape/Dumbledore relationship is. It /is/ there - Dumbledore is, I think, the only person in canon whose attitude towards Snape can be called friendly and appreciative. He seems to be, also, the only person Snape really trusts. Only Dumbledore has insight into the Potion Master's thoughts and motives, and since Snape is an Occlumens that means he must have /told/ them to him. Poor Severus, how horrid it must have been to him when he realised at the end of PoA that Dumbledore had fooled him... It was probably worse than seeing Sirius escape. Yours severely, Sigune From kcawte at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 26 22:26:17 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:26:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crazy thought...... References: Message-ID: <000d01c3e45b$6b096300$a6706751@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 89659 Berit > > I guess it would not be in tune with Harry's character to walk by and > not intervene if he caught Dudley and his gang beating up a > defenseless child. Of course I could argue that since Harry is not > allowed to use magic in the Muggle world, he wisely refrains from > rescue missions (without the magic, the only thing Harry would > accomplish anyway would be to be beaten to a pulp himself); also HP > history so far has shown us a Harry that's bullied and beaten up by > Dudley and his gang just as much as any other Little Whinging child, > so he might not be in the mood to get too close to them. > > But I accept that Harry might not have been an eyewitness to the > incident himself but might have overheard Dudley and his gang > bragging about it (I don't think any of the children of Little > Whinging told Harry; after all they believe he is a dangerous > criminal and won't be on friendly, talkative terms with him any day > soon :-). But then I think it's odd that Harry would have remembered > the full name (!) and age of this kid that's completely unknown to > him, just after overhearing his name being spoken once. What's the > chance of Harry caring what this little kid's name and age are? If > Harry just overheard the story of Dudley beating up this, to him > unknown but named child, why did he bother to "memorize" and later > speak of him by his full name? -When he doesn't even know/remember > the names of a lot of Hogwarts students that he has been living with > for several years? > K Well I take your point about Mark probably being a local - I was really only arguing because I could than because I thought I was definitely right :) But you raise some things here I think I do disagree with (rather than just being awkward) The idea of Harry being beaten to a pulp was pretty much what I meant when I said intervening would be pointless. The best thing to do in his position if he wanted to help would actually be to find a responsible adult (preferably someone who knows Mark). The smartest thing to do if he wants to stay in one piece is to completely ignore the event. But Harry has never been the sensible, get help type and (fortunately) he's also never been one to put his own safety over doing what is right. I think it would be totally in character for Harry to charge in regardless of the likelihood of him getting hurt in order to try and protect Mark ... because trying to help is absolutely the 'right' (not to mention heroic thing to do). I think, despite what Dudley and co might do to him, he has far more reason to fear Lord Voldemort, but he's never yet flinched from going up against him when that was the right thing to do. Frankly after the year Harry has just had (in GoF) I suspect he doesn't actually *care* what happens to him anywhere near as much as he might have in the past. And as for why he would memorize Mark's details when he doesn't remember a lot of the students at Hogwarts that is a point against your argument too ... if he can't remember kids he lives with for nine months of the year why is he going to recognise a kid who he's only seen for a few weeks each year for the last four years (before he became a wizard Harry wasn't allowed out of the house much, remember, and the kid's 5 years younger than him so I doubt he knows him from primary school). No he memorized the name and details when he overheard them (in my opinion) because he *did* have a good reason to do so, he could use them to make Dudley think he knows a lot more about him than he actually does, which is bound to worry the boy, especially since he is also torn between looking on Harry with scorn (as the kid he's bullied all his life) and fearing his magic. And as for the local kids not wanting to know Harry, who is a 'dangerous criminal' - if you were being regularly bullied by a group of teenage thugs, the local dangerous criminal would start looking like *exactly* the sort of person you want to be known as the friend of :) K From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 26 14:34:52 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:34:52 -0000 Subject: Longbottoms' memory charm (was Re: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: This ties in to my my pet theory > regarding the Longbottoms' insanity: that they laid a memory charm on > themselves, to protect whatever crucial piece of information the DEs > were desperate to recover regarding Voldemort. It was the attempt to > break through this memory charm that made them insane (which we know > happens because of the Bertha Jorkins story). In the same vein, it > was his parents who memory charmed Neville, both in order to protect > him, and to protect the information he might have absorbed from them. Jen: This is a very compelling theory! An attempt to break the memory charm on the Longbottoms explains their condition more thoroughly than the explanation given of repeated Crucios (or they endured both). I'm wondering about Neville, though. He would still be a baby at the time of his parent's attack and unable to really understand any complex secrets. From the scene in GOF where Neville turns white watching Fake!Moody and the spiders, I'm wondering if the memory charm wasn't put on him AFTER the torture, which he witnessed. Even a baby would sense the tension of hearing his mother and father screaming. We already know Harry is capable of recalling the scene of his parent's murder, albeit with the help of Dementors, at around the same age. That still leaves the question of who charmed Neville if it was after the torture, when his parents were incapable--my vote is Gran! Jen Reese From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Mon Jan 26 15:01:38 2004 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:01:38 EST Subject: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89661 Elvishooked at hotmail.com writes: > I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? I haven't hear that theory before, and have to say I like that. And can see why Snape would have been a good choice. But it does make me wonder, would D'Dore have gone to those lengths to get a spy in the deatheaters, to ask a student to willingly join them and go through torture, and all the other not so pleasant stuff that comes with being a DE? Just a thought, though I don't know what I think about DD and his manipulations anymore...... But thanks for sharing that theory!! I like it personally. Joy From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Mon Jan 26 15:19:46 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:19:46 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89662 Hi, Inge wrote: I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? > spang writes: I don't think this theory is true. Something Dumbledore said at the trials which Harry sees through the pensieve makes me feel that. He said something like Snape indeed was a death eater but he turned in at great personal cost. This means that Snape had indeed become a death eater and later cut loose from the outfit. Snape's story is proabably the best unexplained mystery in the canon and I think the reason why he isn't given DADA job also fits in somehow with his death eater story. From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Jan 26 15:07:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:07:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's Role (WAS: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms References: Message-ID: <001c01c3e41e$5e0f03e0$5902a8c0@Belkin> No: HPFGUIDX 89663 This post got *way* longer than I intended. I started by just responding to replies to my Neville memory charm speculation, and suddenly found myself writing about *why* I like the theory that Neville has been marked and then memory charmed. Hitomi wrote: > I'm not arguing with most of your points, because you brought up > some good ones, but Neville can see thestrals because he saw his > grandfather die (according to what he says). I didn't necessarily mean to suggest that he didn't see his grandfather die (so perhaps "contrived" was a bad word choice). But there's something about the way he says it that implied to me at least that he didn't want to talk about his experience with death, or perhaps that he doesn't have any personal recollection of this experience, which is part of what led me down the path to figure out whether this is a clue and why. Perhaps Neville's hesitation is an attempt on his part to grope for a memory of an event he has no knowledge of except for third-party accounts. He's in the same > category as Luna, and we don't know if he has ever had a near-death > experience, but he has seen death, so he would be attracted by the > veil regardless, by your theory, which I rather liked, though I > don't think it necessarily has to be the death of a loved one. True, there's no evidence that Luna has had a near-death experience, but it's not suggested that she needed to be dragged away from the veil, as Harry, Ginny and Neville were. Since attempts have been made on Harry's and Ginny's lives (but not Luna's, as far as we know), I thought that might be a clue to Neville's past as well, especially since we don't know if Ginny has any brush with death other than the Chamber of Secrets. > Probably just if you've seen death. Harry didn't exactly love > Cedric, just respected him, though I guess that could be seen as a > form of love, if you want to get technical. Actually, I was thinking of Lily's death, which he didn't actually see but whose horror he experienced when the Dementors brought out that memory. Harry's loss parallels Luna's loss, since both have experienced the death of their mothers. > Hitomi: > I agree, we don't know enough about what happened to Neville's > parents, such as where Neville was, but we can assume the Curse > caused their insanity pretty safely. Bellatrix admits as much > towards the end of Book 5, when threatening Neville, and DD > originally told Harry that was the cause, so if DD believe the Curse > can cause insanity, it probably can. And besides, any form of > torture, apparently that bad, can probably cause insanity if used > long enough, neh? > She may assume that it caused their insanity, but if the Ministry was responsible, she would never know. There *are* lawless people at the Ministry (Umbridge, for example) who hurt others to achieve their own ends, so I wouldn't put it past them. Or, if she was using the Cruciatus Curse, it might have been an attempt to break through an existing memory charm, as Naama suggested, which makes a lot of sense since Voldemort used torture to break through Bertha Jorkins' memory charm. Naama also suggested: > However, we learn from the Lockhart incident that it is possible to > lay a memory charm on oneself. This ties in to my my pet theory > regarding the Longbottoms' insanity: that they laid a memory charm on > themselves, to protect whatever crucial piece of information the DEs > were desperate to recover regarding Voldemort. I have to say that I really like this idea. Even though I'm partial to scenarios that involve nefarious deeds, especially by the Ministry, the possibility that they charmed themselves can't be discounted. I do think, however, that the Longbottoms had more information than simply the location of Voldemort that they needed to hide. I think it would be fittingly symbolic for the Longbottoms' memory loss to have been caused by memory charms (whose morality has been debated on this list before) than if Cruciatus was the sole explanation. I think the same about Neville, who is also memory-impaired. And I think JKR likes this kind of symbolism. Hitomi again: > Gran just might be like that, > you know, like some fathers who constantly compare one son who is > good at say, football, to one who isn't. Neville probably just > doesn't live up to her expectations, he's not the most bold person > alive. I agree that Neville doesn't live up to her expectations, but I have always found Gran to be an enigma. She never does anything to help Neville to become more like his dad, just constantly berates him for his alleged failure to live up to her expectations. Instead of giving Neville his father's wand as a constant reminder of what he should be, she should be nurturing Neville's abilities. Instead, it's Harry and the DA that finally bring his talents to the surface. Is she mourning her inability to recreate her lost son in Neville? I really don't understand why she's undermined Neville's confidence the way she has; it just seems to make his nervousness a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, unless she wants to suppress his magical abilities in order to keep him alive. Augustinapeach wrote: > When the prophecy was made, DD didn't know whether it referred to > the Potters or the Longbottoms, so he probably put protections in > place for both families, meaning the Longbottoms (including Granny, > I guess) would know about the prophecy and its contents. I just > wonder if Granny has told Neville. She apparently discusses matters > related to LV with Neville, since he tells Harry in OoP, "My gran > says that's rubbish. . . .We believe Harry. My gran's always said > You-Know-Who would come back one day. She says if DD says he's > back, he's back" (p. 219). And we know Neville is mighty good at > keeping a secret. > If Gran did know about the prophecy, I have no doubt that she would have told Neville (probably right before telling him that if he had his father's talent, *he* could have saved the WW from Voldemort). However, it seems unlikely that Gran was told unless she was in the Order, too, and there's no evidence of that, at least yet. > Hitomi: > When would LV have gotten to Neville, and > where were his parents? (and wouldn't DD know about this?) Clearly, if Voldemort marked Neville, his parents were not present, or Dumbledore would be aware of it. However, Arcum suggested that Neville's grandfather did not die a peaceful death. What if Neville's grandfather died at the hand of Voldemort and Neville was marked in that incident? (I have read the Mugglenet essay you recommended, but it did assumed that Neville was marked by his parents' torture, and not by Voldemort in an event that has not yet been revealed to us. I agree with the essay that the theory that the mark was left on Neville by his parents' torture doesn't fit the prophecy.) I know my scenario doesn't jump out from the text. I came up with it after I started wondering if the prophecy was about Neville instead of (or along with) Harry after all, because I (along with Amy Z and Lizvega) find it quite odd that JKR would raise the tantalizing suggestion that the prophecy might not have been about Harry after all (as Dumbledore tells us) and then allow Dumbledore's conclusion that there's no doubt that it was Harry to stand unchallenged. One of the possibilities, which is not precluded by canon to date, is that the prophecy is about Neville and that in the final battle, Harry will be unable to defeat Voldemort and Neville will do it for him. And I do have a bit of canon to support that outcome. In PoA, Harry has a dream the night before the Quidditch final I that I think will prove to be quite prophetic: "First he dreamed that he had overslept, and that Wood was yelling, 'Where were you? We had to use Neville instead!'" It may not sound like much, but as Quidditch seems to be a metaphor for the struggle against Voldemort, the possibility of Neville replacing Harry is definitely worth noting. I also think it works thematically. He and Harry are clearly intended to be parallel characters, yet opposite in many ways. They were born at the same time, to parents in the Order who defied Voldemort three times. Yet Harry is The Boy Who Lived, while Neville tells Luna he is Nobody. On the surface they seem different, but Harry and Neville have had very different upbringings -- Harry knew nothing of his magical background or what his parents had done, while Neville must have been told constantly what was expected of him. Harry's been slowly piecing together a fuller picture of his parents, and they're being fleshed out as individuals with real faults and past errors. Neville seems to know a lot of information about the past, but it is filtered by Gran, so he gets a very biased perspective, in which his parents are great wizards, saints to the cause of Good, and Neville has no opportunity to learn otherwise. For Neville to be the subject of the prophecy, he must have whatever power resides in the locked room at the DoM. Whatever it is (and I haven't found the right word for it myself), whether it's love (in the agape sense), self-sacrifice, compassion, heart, doing the right thing instead of the easy thing, I think Neville definitely has it. Both Harry and Neville are compassionate, as Ginger points out: > In GoF, > Harry feels sorry for Neville, and starts to see him in a different > light after he sees the penseive, and again in OoP when they meet at > St. Mungo's. Neville shows genuine concern for Harry after Sirius > dies, crawling down the bleachers despite his cursed legs to offer > condolences. > They also have both shown a willingness to stand up for what they believe is right, and a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Harry's speech in PS/SS, when he decides to go through the trapdoor, is evidence of that. And Neville is willing to sacrifice himself in the DoM, telling Harry, telling him not to give the prophecy to the DEs even as Bellatrix prepares to torture him with the Cruciatus curse. Neville may have a mortal fear of Snape, but when things are tough, he makes the hard choice, not the easy one. For me, perhaps the most poignant moment in the entire series comes when Alice Longbottom gives Neville the gum wrapper. Gran, in a "falsely cheery voice" treats Alice like a child, but Neville's response is simple yet eloquent: "Thanks, Mum." I think this simple response say volumes about how Neville treats others. He treats them with human dignity, which is the essence of love. Yup, I think Neville has what it takes. And so does Harry, of course, though in the DoM, Harry chose to hand over the prophecy to protect Neville, while Neville urged him not to do it. Harry made the same choice Dumbledore later laments having made about Harry -- he allowed his feelings for an individual to take precedence over the larger goal. For Harry to have a chance to defeat Voldemort, he'll have to make some choices that are harder than any of the ones he has made to date. Lastly, I just bought a volume of Emily Dickinson's verse, and this one reminded me of Neville and Harry: "I'm nobody! Who are you? Are you nobody too? Then there's a pair of us -- don't tell! They'd banish us, you know. How dreary to be somebody! How public, like a frog To tell your name the livelong day To an admiring bog!" --Emily Dickinson Debbie who owes a huge debt to Elkins, whose Neville posts, starting with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/36772 , are the origin of some of these ideas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 15:44:21 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:44:21 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89664 >Jennifer Palmares wrote: > Dudley and Aunt Petunia must be squibs. I've also been >thinking about the prophecy lately, and what it says about a child >being born in the seventh month. Wasn't Dudley also born in July? > Mandy here: Petunia and Dudley cannot be squibs, as the story stands now. A squib is the non-magical child of magical parents or parent. So unless you subscribe to the theory that Petunia is a witch in hiding, Dudley cannot be a squib. As for Petunia, we believe, (so far) that Lily is a Muggle-born witch. Both Voldemort and Snape refer to her as a 'Mudblood.' So their parents were Muggles that means that Petunia, again, cannot be a squib. Of course things can change. There are hints that Petunia could really be a witch, and that Lily and Petunia's parents could not be who we think they are, etc. But until we know otherwise it is physically impossible for Petunia and her son Dudley to be squibs. I do like the idea that Dudley might be born in July. If it turns out the Petunia and her parents are not who they appear to be, Dudley's birthday could be significant. However don't you think Dumbledore would have mentioned a third birth in July if that birth had fit the prophecy? Cheers, Mandy From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 15:56:01 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:56:01 -0000 Subject: JKR chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89665 > Arya wrote: > > Know what I think? I think that on the March 4th chat with JKR, > someone should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm! > Carol wrote: > Do I dare ask which March 4th chat you're referring to and whether we can access it? If so, let's please ask her which House (or Houses) > MWPP were in and whether Snape is a Vampire and settle these questions once and for all! Mandy here: But wait! Before you all get carried away! We have to leave some juicy surprises for the books. ;-) I looking forward to just enough of a tease from JKR to stimulate us with some new discussion material, so we are not regurgitating the same old stuff. Cheers, Mandy From entropymail at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 16:23:50 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:23:50 -0000 Subject: JKR chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > > Arya wrote: > > > Know what I think? I think that on the March 4th chat with JKR, > > someone should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm! > > > Carol wrote: > > Do I dare ask which March 4th chat you're referring to and whether > we can access it? If so, let's please ask her which House (or Houses) > > MWPP were in and whether Snape is a Vampire and settle these > questions once and for all! > > Mandy here: > But wait! Before you all get carried away! We have to leave some > juicy surprises for the books. ;-) Okay, I may be dabbling in the OT here, but I have a few essentials that, you know, if I ruled the world and all, would most certainly be asked: 1. What's with the Droobles? Are they a message? Is Gran good or bad? And is Neville under some sort of memory charm, and why? 2. How was Dobby able to apparate out of the hospital wing in PS/SS? (No apparating! Read your "Hogwarts, A History"!) 3. Why does Dumbledore trust Snape implicitly? 4. When will the next book be out? No, really, when? 5. What happened in the minutes prior to and immediately after Harry received the fateful scar? Was anyone besides Harry and Voldemort there? 6. Once and for all, did Snape love Lily? 7. Sirius! What have you done with Sirius! :: Entropy :: From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 16:28:31 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:31 -0000 Subject: Is Arthur Weasley destined to become the Minister of Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89667 >derek wrote: > and that Arthur Weasley will become Minister of Magic because >he's viewed as the best person to guide the WW into co-existence >with Muggles >spangb wrote: > Arthur Weasly is too junior to be the next minister, ain't >he? Mandy here: Yes, Arthur is far to junior to become Minister of Magic and will always be so. We can't deny Dumbledore's enormous power and influence over the WW, however as much as Dumbledore supporters Arthur Weasley, I don't think the rest of the MoM does. Oh, I'm sure Arthur has his friends at work as well as his enemies but judging by the fact the Arthur is still a junior minister at his age, suggests to me that there are many other reasons for him being held back, other than the fact that his enemies have kept him down. The WW has had a period of 15 years of peace and if a `muggle loving fool' like Arthur Weasley was going to going to rise up through the ranks of the MoM, he would have done it. Arthur Weasley is a nice guy, a good man and a hardworking Wizard. He is taken unfortunately, advantage of and as he believes the work he is doing is for the greater good of wizard kind, he takes it, smiles and continues working hard. And thank God he does, for someone has to make a stand for the weak/oppressed (read Muggle here) in the world. He is not cut out to make it very far in politics. As much as we might not want that to be true, it is. JKR keeps him in such a low position of status is because he represents the Everyman, and as much as we all want the Everyman to win, or in this case become Minister of Magic, it just doesn't happen. I applaud the reality within the fantasy of JKR's universe, and one thing is very clear, that amongst all the Dragons, Werewolf's and Hippogriffs there are humans that suffer real injustice, death, sacrifice and pain. Arthur Weasley will not become Minister of Magic. Even if it were Dumbledore's wish, which I doubt, he would do a terrible job. The WW would eat him alive. Arthur Weasley is destined to remain a hardworking husband and father surrounded by his loving family and friends. I would like to see the Weasley's financial situation change though so perhaps Arthur will get a promotion, but not up to Minister. Cheers Mandy, who will eat her words if proved wrong by the ever surprising Rowling. From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 16:50:41 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:50:41 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89668 >Kathy wrote: > > that the scar is more than just a homing device for Voldy...it may > also be there because of something Harry's parents-specifically his > mom-did, perhaps with Dumbledore...that is added protection. > Perhaps the real reason the scar burns is because it's protecting > him. Mandy here: Absolutely it is protecting him. I subscribe to the theory that the scar was burned in to Harry's forehead by his mother casting the protection charm and not by Voldemort casting the AK curse. That's not to say LV didn't cast the AK, he most certainly did and it backfired just as the story says. But it is interesting that the scar is in the shape of the "Eihwas" rune symbol meaning protection and it warns Harry of Voldemort's presence and his state of mind. The scar could be responsible for AK backfiring and it could happen again if someone else tries it on Harry. It is possible that Lily could have put it there, and there were no witnesses, (that we know of so far) to the events in Godric's Hollow that night anything could have happened. It is easier for the WW to see the nasty scar on HP head and say `Oh! `He Who Must Not Be Named' did that." Well perhaps he didn't. Mandy. From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 26 13:20:34 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:20:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040126132034.60829.qmail@web25008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89669 wrote: > snip....I see 'Muggle' as a word like that. The group it represents has > little say in what they're called, due to certain circumstances. This may have already been mentioned, I haven't seen the whole thread, but I was watching this documentary about the history of cannabis use and legislation in the US, and it said that 'muggle' used to be another name for cannabis! Anneli --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 17:08:53 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:08:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040126170853.54587.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89670 --- spang_b wrote: > Hi, > Inge wrote: > I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore > trusts him so much - > > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death > Eater in the first > > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore > wanted a spy as > > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the > best choise? > > > spang writes: > This means that Snape had indeed become a death > eater and later cut > loose from the outfit. Just because DD said it, does not mean it is true. As we have seen with Harry, DD does not tell the whole truth. (Since I do not have the book with me) Does anyone have the exact quote? I do not beleive it says that Snape turned from Voldemort exaclty, but just that he turned. The 'great personal cost' may have been his friends and family, and not his risk of death at Voldie's hands. Chris ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 17:28:29 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:28:29 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89671 Steve Vander Ark: >>What is actually says is "his month-old cine-camera," which tells us that Dudley's birthday is about a month before Harry's. If we accept that Harry was born in 1980, Dudley's birthday would be June 22. It is certainly right around that date.<< Geoff: >Sorry to disagree but my copy says "had already broken his /new/ cine-camera" (my emphasis). (PS "The Letters from No One" p.28 UK edition)< KathyK then says: My copy says the same thing (well, actually mine says video camera as it's the US edition). But not much further into the chapter, when Harry moves into Dudley's second bedroom there is this: "The month-old video camera was lying on top of a small, working tank Dudley had once driven over the next door neightbor's dog" (SS, US edition p. 37) This was the first day Harry received a Hogwarts letter. If you follow the sequence in the books, Harry gets his first letter a week before his eleventh birthday, meaning Dudley *is* about a month older than Harry and born not in July but in June. KathyK From amani at charter.net Mon Jan 26 18:54:03 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:54:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape References: <20040126170853.54587.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009b01c3e43d$c509d600$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89672 --- spang_b wrote:> Hi, > Inge wrote: > I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore > trusts him so much - > > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death > Eater in the first > > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore > wanted a spy as > > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the > best choise? > > > spang writes: > This means that Snape had indeed become a death > eater and later cut > loose from the outfit. Chris: Just because DD said it, does not mean it is true. As we have seen with Harry, DD does not tell the whole truth. (Since I do not have the book with me) Does anyone have the exact quote? I do not beleive it says that Snape turned from Voldemort exaclty, but just that he turned. The 'great personal cost' may have been his friends and family, and not his risk of death at Voldie's hands. Taryn: Got my book right here! "I have given evidence already on this matter," he [Dumbledore] said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." [GoF American paperback, pg. 590-591] So it seems pretty clear that Snape joined the Death Eaters and THEN turned spy for Dumbledore. I think the idea that he joined the DE's at Dumbledore's request doesn't seem enough to explain the trust between them and seems too simple an explanation. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From helen at odegard.com Mon Jan 26 19:13:36 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR chat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e440$80583490$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89673 > > Arya wrote: > > > Know what I think?? I think that on the March 4th chat with JKR, > > someone should ask her to explain this damn Fidelius Charm!? > > > Carol wrote: > > Do I dare ask which March 4th chat you're referring to and whether > we can access it? If so, let's please ask her which House (or Houses) > > MWPP were in and whether Snape is a Vampire and settle these > questions once and for all! > > Mandy here: > But wait! Before you all get carried away! We have to leave some > juicy surprises for the books. ;-) Okay, I may be dabbling in the OT here, but I have a few essentials that, you know, if I ruled the world and all, would most certainly be asked: 1. What's with the Droobles? Are they a message? Is Gran good or bad? And is Neville under some sort of memory charm, and why? 2. How was Dobby able to apparate out of the hospital wing in PS/SS? (No apparating! Read your "Hogwarts, A History"!) 3. Why does Dumbledore trust Snape implicitly? 4. When will the next book be out? No, really, when? 5. What happened in the minutes prior to and immediately after Harry received the fateful scar? Was anyone besides Harry and Voldemort there? 6. Once and for all, did Snape love Lily? 7. Sirius! What have you done with Sirius! :: Entropy :: >From Helen (LizardLaugh): Unfortunately, she's not going to answer hardly any of those questions (especially the direct questions) in a meaningful way. I think she will answer things like people's houses, assuming it isn't directly related to some later revelation. Is Snape a vampire? Well, if he isn't and she thinks it funny people would think that, she might just flat out say no. However, ack... she won't even take questions like that. Gone are the days when we could ask her questions on the fly. Something like 'have we met any vampires or will we meet any vampires', she'd probably answer. For instance, I suspect Harry is a Metamorphmagus like many suspect Snape is a vampire, so... I would word the question like this: "have we met any other Metamorphmagi other than Tonks?" or "Does Harry have any other special powers like the parseltongue thing we don't know about yet?" If someone asked "Is Harry a Metamorphmagus?" she likely would simply skip the question. "Why does Dumbledore trust Snape?" might get us some hints (we would hope). The Lily question has been asked, and she refuses to answer. I don't think we are going to get more than that. As far as I know, she is taking twelve pre-selected questions from school children. I hope they are good ones. I heard that she *might* take more questions, but again, she's going to be selective, and I think wording things in such a way that she can either expound or are rather vague are more likely to get more enlightening answers (even if it doesn't get us definitive answers). Helen, who hopes that we at least find out when we can expect book six From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 19:32:17 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:32:17 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <009b01c3e43d$c509d600$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" wrote: , Inge wrote: I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? Snip Taryn replies: Got my book right here! "I have given evidence already on this matter," he [Dumbledore] said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." [GoF American paperback, pg. 590-591] So it seems pretty clear that Snape joined the Death Eaters and THEN turned spy for Dumbledore. I think the idea that he joined the DE's at Dumbledore's request doesn't seem enough to explain the trust between them and seems too simple an explanation. Inge again: These words were spoken by Dumbledore during the trial back then when Karkaroff was giving out names and revealed Snape as being a DE. Dumbledore may not have told the entire truth. In fact some of what Dumbledore says at the trial could be the truth with modifications. When he tells the court: "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." - it just could be the truth - only Dumbledore 'forgot' to tell the whole truth - namely that Snape became a DE because Dumbledore asked him to. The theory still works and I really like the idea. Makes me love Severus even more to think what he had to give up and to live such a horrible double-life, taking everyone's disgust when he was (is) indeed a true hero - and nobody but Dumbledore knows. Inge From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 17:48:52 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:48:52 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: <000d01c3e45b$6b096300$a6706751@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89675 Berit wrote: > > But I accept that Harry might not have been an eyewitness to the > > incident himself but might have overheard Dudley and his gang > > bragging about it Whizbang: I believe Harry says, "I heard you did Mark Evans two nights ago." OotP It was secondhand information. Hard to guess where he may have heard it though. Kathryn wrote: > And as for why he would memorize Mark's details when he doesn't > remember a lot of the students at Hogwarts that is a point against > your argument too ... if he can't remember kids he lives with for > nine months of the year why is he going to recognise a kid who > he's only seen for a few weeks each year for the last four years > (before he became a wizard Harry wasn't allowed out of the house > much, remember, and the kid's 5 years younger than him so I > doubt he knows him from primary school). No he memorized the name > and details when he overheard them (in my opinion) because he > *did* have a good reason to do so, he could use them to make > Dudley think he knows a lot more about him than he actually does, > which is bound to worry the boy, especially since he is also torn > between looking on Harry with scorn (as the kid he's bullied all > his life) and fearing his magic. Whizbang: This becomes an interesting problem. The name does roll off Harry's tongue a little too easily. I can't say any explanations for that, so far, are entirely satisfying. It can't be because they know he's their cousin. Harry doesn't seem to know his mother's maiden name until he goes into the pensieve. I have a feeling that Mark is someone known to both Harry and Dudley, somehow. Perhaps he's the ringleader of a gang of ten year olds from the next territory over that's selling cigarettes to Dudley and Co. Or maybe Dudley is forcing kids to pay protection money to keep his "dangerous criminal" cousin away from them and Mark wouldn't pay up. Cheeky. -Whizbang From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 26 19:39:17 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:39:17 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stockwell Orphanage References: <1075071149.9995.85767.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002501c3e444$2169d980$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 89676 Carolyn wrote: > Geoff, a further point on location. As you will have gathered, I > wouldn't choose Baptist history as my starter for 10 on Mastermind, > but a faint bell has just rung in my head about the Welsh Baptists, > as a well-known and vocal part of your church. > > There are so many Welsh threads in the series, not least about > Godric's Hollow, dragons, green eyes etc etc.. could this be another? > Is Little Hangleton on the Welsh border perhaps ? There are a lot of -ton names around the North East Wales area so if you're going to surmise, then that's the place to look. But there's one possible flaw in the theory. The descriptions of the Riddle House and of the Riddles' social position suggests that they're "gentry". And that would almost certainly rule out the possibility of their being Baptists. In Wales, as in England, Nonconformism was largely a lower class belief. the gentry were mostly Anglicans - squire and parson are inextricably linked in village life. Slightly differently between the two countries - in Wales the middle class were largely Nonconformist, in England they were largely Anglican. Even being Baptist was slightly unusual in Wales, most people in Wales were New Dissent (Calvinistic Methodists) rather than Old Dissent (Baptists, Independents, and so on). So for those reasons, I think I'd look elsewhere for the Riddles. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 18:55:42 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:55:42 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89677 Mandy here: I subscribe to the theory that the scar was burned in to Harry's > forehead by his mother casting the protection charm and not by > Voldemort casting the AK curse. Whizbang: Lily never cast a protection charm!??! She died to save Harry. It was like the bond between a wizard and one who saves his life. The traces of her love, the love that brought her to die for her child, are the protection that is still in Harry's blood. Dumbledore cast a charm that kept Harry protected in the house of Lily's sister. But even that was based on Lily's blood, given for Harry. It's a blood bond. > Mandy: > But it is interesting that the scar is in the shape of he "Eihwas" > rune symbol meaning protection. Whizbang: The rune is the sowelo, representing the sun and the life force. The scar is Voldemort's life force which he lost when he tried to kill Harry. He was "less than the meanest ghost" forcing himself to stay alive. Even he didn't know what he was. But he was worse than dead. One or another of his immortality spells had transfered his life force to Harry' forehead in the form of the sowelo rune. It is the scar which connects Harry and Voldemort, and is the mark that makes Harry Voldemort's equal. Anything Voldemort can do, Harry is also capable of, even if he requires some training. Mandy: > It is possible that Lily could have put it there, and there were > no > witnesses, (that we know of so far) to the events in Godric's > Hollow that night anything could have happened. It is easier for > the WW to see the nasty scar on HP head and say `Oh! `He Who Must > Not Be Named' did that." Well perhaps he didn't. > > Mandy. Whizbang: Harry remembers the green flash followed by the pain in his forehead that the Dudleys had told him happened in the car crash. From lupinesque at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 19:44:51 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:44:51 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89678 David wrote: > Perhaps Book 7 is > to be entitled 'Harry Potter and X Y' where X Y is the name of a > person Or the description of a person whose identity we learn as we read, as with Prisoner of Azkaban. I know: Harry Potter and the Nemesis of Voldemort! Tee hee. BTW, Hitomi, your argument is very sound and almost definitely correct. I'm just working out a kink that's been bugging me for a while. I also like making the occasional long-shot prediction because they pay off so much more generously. David wrote: > The other possibility is much simpler, that the titles are meant to > evoke some other literary series which used a similar formula. The > trouble is, I can't think of any plausible ones. > > Any ideas? The Bobbsey Twins? Pippin wrote: > I think the idea is to evoke the idea of the genre series in > general. JKR pulls off alot of her literary legerdemain by > flourishing the cloak of pulp--Snape in Book One does everything > but twirl his moustache. Very true. And we love it! One doesn't need the "HP and the . . . " to carry off the genre series idea, but it does hammer it home. Another thing we know about JKR and genres is that she likes to mix them up (children's, humor, mystery, fantasy, boarding-school . . . ) and also spoof them a bit as she goes. Maybe what I perceive as going overboard is part of the spoof? Amy Z From helen at odegard.com Mon Jan 26 19:49:41 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:49:41 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3e445$8a4d8b80$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 89679 >Kathy wrote: > > that the scar is more than just a homing device for Voldy...it may > also be there because of something Harry's parents-specifically his > mom-did, perhaps with Dumbledore...that is added protection.? > Perhaps the real reason the scar burns is because it's protecting > him. Mandy here: Absolutely it is protecting him.? I subscribe to the theory that the scar was burned in to Harry's forehead by his mother casting the protection charm and not by Voldemort casting the AK curse.? That's not to say LV didn't cast the AK, he most certainly did and it backfired just as the story says.?? But it is interesting that the scar is in the shape of the "Eihwas" rune symbol meaning protection and it warns Harry of Voldemort's presence and his state of mind.? The scar could be responsible for AK backfiring and it could happen again if someone else tries it on Harry. It is possible that Lily could have put it there, and there were no witnesses, (that we know of so far) to the events in Godric's Hollow that night anything could have happened.? It is easier for the WW to see the nasty scar on HP head and say `Oh!? `He Who Must Not Be Named' did that."? Well perhaps he didn't. Mandy. >From Helen (LizardLaugh): Now wouldn't that open up a whole new can of worms? It would mean that Voldie didn't mark Harry as his equal, except indirectly, but it could also be argued he marked Neville indirectly (what happened to his parents is certainly psychologically scarring to Neville). I think the mentioning of the two runic symbols by Hermione was a hint for us to all go look them up, lol. I know I did. The question is... is the scar Eihwas right side up or upside down? They mean two different things. Helen From amani at charter.net Mon Jan 26 19:53:55 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:53:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape References: Message-ID: <00ad01c3e446$21eb0580$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89680 Inge wrote: I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - could it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the best choise? Snip Taryn replies: Got my book right here! "I have given evidence already on this matter," he [Dumbledore] said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." [GoF American paperback, pg. 590-591] So it seems pretty clear that Snape joined the Death Eaters and THEN turned spy for Dumbledore. I think the idea that he joined the DE's at Dumbledore's request doesn't seem enough to explain the trust between them and seems too simple an explanation. Inge again: These words were spoken by Dumbledore during the trial back then when Karkaroff was giving out names and revealed Snape as being a DE. Dumbledore may not have told the entire truth. In fact some of what Dumbledore says at the trial could be the truth with modifications. When he tells the court: "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." - it just could be the truth - only Dumbledore 'forgot' to tell the whole truth - namely that Snape became a DE because Dumbledore asked him to. The theory still works and I really like the idea. Makes me love Severus even more to think what he had to give up and to live such a horrible double-life, taking everyone's disgust when he was (is) indeed a true hero - and nobody but Dumbledore knows. Taryn: But how could he have ALWAYS been a spy for DD if he was a DE and THEN became a spy? I'll agree DD doesn't always tell the whole truth, but that would seem to be a direct contradiction of what he said. Also, what reason would DD have for not telling everyone Snape only became a DE under his request and to spy for the good side? It certainly would've made Snape look a little better. Besides, I think Snape is partly so interesting because he WAS a bad guy, and something happened to make him turn to the good side. He's a great mystery. ---------- Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 17:28:54 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:28:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89681 Elvishooked at hotmail.com writes: >I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much - could >it be that the reason Snape became a Death Eater in the first place was by >Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore wanted a spy as close to Voldemort as >possible and Snape was the best choise? Joy: >I haven't hear that theory before, and have to say I like that. And can >see why Snape would have been a good choice. But it does make me wonder, >would D'Dore have gone to those lengths to get a spy in the deatheaters, to >ask a student to willingly join them and go through torture, and all the >other not so pleasant stuff that comes with being a DE? Just a thought, >though I don't know what I think about DD and his manipulations >anymore...... But thanks for sharing that theory!! I like it personally. Kathy: Joy, you stated "Would D'Dore have gone to those lengths to get a spy in the deatheaters? I found a passage in ooP on pg. 839 that suggests that he would and has gone to many extreme lenghths when it comes to Harry. DD says "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive...". To what extent might he have gone if he put Harry's safety above all else? Just thought it fit. Kathy From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 20:13:41 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:13:41 -0000 Subject: Squib or muggle - who's a late bloomer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy King" wrote: > > Kathy: > This is moreless what I was referring to. In SS pg. 58 Harry tells Hagrid: > "I think you must have made a mistake. I don't think I can be a wizard" > Hagrid says "Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?" > This is what I meant when I said that the Dursley's spoil Dudley so as to not allow him to get upset which could result in him showing signs of being magical. I think this makes sense. Petunia's actions in OOP confirm the fact that she knows quite a bit more about magic then previously thought. She must remember strange things happening to Lilly before she got her Hogwarts letter. If she knew that Dudley would learn the truth if he became upset or angry, then she would do everything in her power to make sure that he was never upset or angry. In fact, in PS isn't there a mention of 'Dudley hadn't really cried in years, he just screwed up his face? From shydi60 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 18:14:51 2004 From: shydi60 at yahoo.com (shydi60) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:14:51 -0000 Subject: Longbottoms' memory charm (was Re: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > That still leaves the question of who charmed Neville if it was > after the torture, when his parents were incapable--my vote is Gran! > > Jen Reese Maybe more than one person placed a memory charm on Neville - maybe Gran and Uncle Algie put one on him, each without the knowledge of the other. Double whammy! Big D From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 20:40:45 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:40:45 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: <000501c3e445$8a4d8b80$6401a8c0@helenw1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" wrote: Helen wrote: > I think the mentioning of the two runic symbols by Hermione was a > hint for us to all go look them up, lol. I know I did. The > question is... is the scar Eihwas right side up or upside down? > They mean two different things. > > Helen Whizbang: We looked at book covers and the mark on the baby Harry in the SS movie. It was easier to see the scar on the covers of foreign editions, oddly enough. We finally concluded that it's the sowelo or life force rune, but it is a matter of conjecture or interpretation as it isn't always consistant. The Grand Pre illustrations are more difficult to see or interpret for some reason. From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 21:01:07 2004 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:01:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape In-Reply-To: <00ad01c3e446$21eb0580$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: <20040126210107.86851.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89685 Maybe Snape joined the DE with the intentions that he would turn to DD later on as a spy. No one asked him to join the DE to play spy, he decided to take the journey upon himself. And then when he went to DD to offer his services, he also won DD's trust, and respect and what not, which is what he wanted to begin with. Danielle --- Taryn Kimel wrote: > Inge wrote: > I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore > trusts him so much - > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death > Eater in the first > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore > wanted a spy as > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the > best choise? > > Snip > > > Taryn replies: > Got my book right here! > "I have given evidence already on this matter," he > [Dumbledore] said > calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. > However, he rejoined > our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned > spy for us, at > great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater > than I am." [GoF > American paperback, pg. 590-591] > > So it seems pretty clear that Snape joined the Death > Eaters and THEN > turned spy for Dumbledore. I think the idea that he > joined the DE's > at Dumbledore's request doesn't seem enough to > explain the trust > between them and seems too simple an explanation. > > > Inge again: > These words were spoken by Dumbledore during the > trial back then when > Karkaroff was giving out names and revealed Snape as > being a DE. > > Dumbledore may not have told the entire truth. > In fact some of what Dumbledore says at the trial > could be the truth > with modifications. > > When he tells the court: "Severus Snape was indeed a > Death Eater. > However, he rejoined our side before Lord > Voldemort's downfall and > turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now > no more a Death > Eater than I am." - it just could be the truth - > only > Dumbledore 'forgot' to tell the whole truth - namely > that Snape > became a DE because Dumbledore asked him to. > The theory still works and I really like the idea. > Makes me love > Severus even more to think what he had to give up > and to live such a > horrible double-life, taking everyone's disgust when > he was (is) > indeed a true hero - and nobody but Dumbledore > knows. > > Taryn: > But how could he have ALWAYS been a spy for DD if he > was a DE and THEN became a spy? I'll agree DD > doesn't always tell the whole truth, but that would > seem to be a direct contradiction of what he said. > > Also, what reason would DD have for not telling > everyone Snape only became a DE under his request > and to spy for the good side? It certainly would've > made Snape look a little better. > > Besides, I think Snape is partly so interesting > because he WAS a bad guy, and something happened to > make him turn to the good side. He's a great > mystery. > > ---------- > Taryn : http://taryn.shirataki.net > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 21:12:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:12:08 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89686 > Hitomi: > > JKR in responding to a reader asking her which character she > missed most when done writing (at Royal Alber Hall interview with > Stephen Fry): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going > to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of > me in Harry." > >> > > Frost: > That just means that she loves him, warts and all. And being a > hero... heh. I think she's a woman who has enough insight to see > beyond the "muscle" and see what is truly heroic about a person. > That doesn't require them to be perfect. I mean, really who would > you rather read about? Superman or Batman. I'd pick Batman any > day. Batman is my hero, and he's the dark grumpy guy without any > superpowers, (beyond his Bottomless bat-wallet.) Hero's don't have > to be perfect. They just have to show something that we admire and > strive for. Carol: I think Hitomi may be misreading JKR's use of the phrase "my hero." She doesn't mean that he's her personal hero as Popeye is Olive Oyl's--"my hero!" (swoon)--in the old cartoons. (Sorry I can't think of a better example). She simply means that he's her protagonist, the hero of the book she's writing, not her personal hero. Carol, who apologizes for the bad example. No ridicule intended. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 21:19:31 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:19:31 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: Steve Vander Ark: > >>What is actually says is "his month-old cine-camera," which tells > us that Dudley's birthday is about a month before Harry's. If we > accept that Harry was born in 1980, Dudley's birthday would be June > 22. It is certainly right around that date.<< > Geoff: > >Sorry to disagree but my copy says "had already broken his /new/ > cine-camera" (my emphasis). > > (PS "The Letters from No One" p.28 UK edition)< > KathyK: > My copy says the same thing (well, actually mine says video camera > as it's the US edition). But not much further into the chapter, > when Harry moves into Dudley's second bedroom there is this: > > "The month-old video camera was lying on top of a small, working > tank Dudley had once driven over the next door neightbor's dog" > > (SS, US edition p. 37) Geoff: Now I've found the bit you mean. (PS "The Letters from No One" p.32 UK edition). I thought that Steve Vander Ark had actually found a discrepancy between editions because I assumed he was quoting from the same section of canon as I was. It would have helped if he had given chapter and verse which I always try to do. I ran through the sequence of events and found, in addition to the confirmation that Dudley canot be born in July, what I think is a minor error: 23rd July. Dudley gets his Smeltings uniform. 24th July. Harry's first letter. He is moved to the bedroom. 25th July. Second letter - addressed to "The Smallest Bedroom". 26th July. Harry finds Dudley on the doormat. Letter box nailed up. Friday 27th. 12 letters arrived by various means. (First reference to the day of the week in canon). Saturday 28th. 24 letters arrive, some rolled up in eggs. Sunday 29th. No post. 30-40 letters via fireplace. Vernon takes the family away to Cokeworth. Monday 30th. 100+ letters at Railview Hotel. Vernon takes the family to "Hut-on-the-Rock". Tuesday 31st. Harry's birthday. Hagrid arrives at midnight. If Dudley's cine camera was in the bedroom on 24th July and was "a month old" this could mean anything from say three and a half weeks to just over the month - (I don't expect Harry would say "Aha! That camera is exactly a month old - Cowabunga!!") - then Dudley's birthday is certainly in the latter part of June. The curiosity is that 31st July 1991 - Harry's eleventh birthday - was a Wednesday. Possibly a slip of the pen? From EnsTren at aol.com Mon Jan 26 21:20:48 2004 From: EnsTren at aol.com (EnsTren at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:20:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Titling convention significant? Message-ID: <5E2D80E6.30FDEFD8.00170183@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89688 In a message dated 1/26/2004 2:44:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Amy Z" writes: >David wrote: > >> Perhaps Book 7 is >> to be entitled 'Harry Potter and X Y' where X Y is the name of a >> person > >Or the description of a person whose identity we learn as we read, as >with Prisoner of Azkaban. I know: Harry Potter and the Nemesis of >Voldemort! Tee hee. > I like that Title, but it should be puralized. The Nemesises of Voldemort, because though the books are about Harry they are also about the entire light side of the conflict. >BTW, Hitomi, your argument is very sound and almost definitely >correct. I'm just working out a kink that's been bugging me for a >while. I also like making the occasional long-shot prediction >because they pay off so much more generously. > How about this as a Long-shot: one of the next books are going to feature, perhaps heavil the Quinipeds, (I don't have the monster book next to me). Why do I think so? Because they were mentioned in the Monster book, mentioned they are only found one place in the world, and given back history, when there was no reason to mentioned them at all. Nemi From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 21:27:28 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:27:28 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Helen R. Granberry" > wrote: > > Helen wrote: > > > I think the mentioning of the two runic symbols by Hermione was a > > hint for us to all go look them up, lol. I know I did. The > > question is... is the scar Eihwas right side up or upside down? > > They mean two different things. > > > > Helen > > Whizbang: > > We looked at book covers and the mark on the baby Harry in the SS > movie. It was easier to see the scar on the covers of foreign > editions, oddly enough. We finally concluded that it's the sowelo > or life force rune, but it is a matter of conjecture or > interpretation as it isn't always consistant. The Grand Pre > illustrations are more difficult to see or interpret for some reason. Geoff: I wouldn't accept the idea of the eihwas rune. Having looked up runes to check - since I'm not into them - the rune mentioned doesn't look at all to me like the description at the beginning of PS: "they could see a curiously shaped cut like a bolt of lightning." (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.16-17 UK edition). From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 21:34:29 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:34:29 -0000 Subject: Stockwell Orphanage In-Reply-To: <002501c3e444$2169d980$25e66151@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89690 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Carolyn wrote: > > Geoff, a further point on location. As you will have gathered, I > > wouldn't choose Baptist history as my starter for 10 on Mastermind, > > but a faint bell has just rung in my head about the Welsh Baptists, > > as a well-known and vocal part of your church. > > > > There are so many Welsh threads in the series, not least about > > Godric's Hollow, dragons, green eyes etc etc.. could this be another? > > Is Little Hangleton on the Welsh border perhaps ? > > There are a lot of -ton names around the North East Wales area so if you're > going to surmise, then that's the place to look. But there's one possible > flaw in the theory. The descriptions of the Riddle House and of the Riddles' > social position suggests that they're "gentry". And that would almost > certainly rule out the possibility of their being Baptists. Geoff: In rural areas perhaps. But there are many very sizeable Baptist churches which were established in urban areas dating back a long way. And we are talking of the mid-20th century. Ffred: > In Wales, as in England, Nonconformism was largely a lower class belief. the > gentry were mostly Anglicans - squire and parson are inextricably linked in > village life. Slightly differently between the two countries - in Wales the > middle class were largely Nonconformist, in England they were largely > Anglican. Even being Baptist was slightly unusual in Wales, most people in > Wales were New Dissent (Calvinistic Methodists) rather than Old Dissent > (Baptists, Independents, and so on). Geoff: Yes which is as I suggested previously; the Welsh Baptist setup, in fact the whole Welsh attitude to "chapel", is in many ways quite different to the English. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 26 21:37:18 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:37:18 -0000 Subject: Titling convention significant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: David: >> > The other possibility is much simpler, that the titles are meant to > > evoke some other literary series which used a similar formula. The > > trouble is, I can't think of any plausible ones. > > Geoff: As a kid, I enjoyed the "Doctor Dolittle and the......" books by Hugh Lofting though they are fantasy of a completely different type. From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 26 22:28:58 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:28:58 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood?/Snape's wife Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89692 Sigune wrote >The design of Alan Rickman's clothes in the film only reinforce >that idea (of Snape's celebacy) - the frock-coat has a clerical look >to it. Exactly what I was thinking. However, I think my idea and the designer's (and possible Sigune's) is influenced by having seen Rickman as Obadiah Slope in the Barchester Chronicles - a clerical gent and much nastier than Snape could ever hope to be. I have to agree with Sigune that I can't see Severus in the throes of the tender passion. Sad, really. Sylvia (who wouldn't mind trying to convert him) , From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 22:37:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:37:42 -0000 Subject: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubs99111" > wrote: > > Pippin: > > > The same argument applies to the Stone. But Dumbledore > > > couldn't destroy it until he got Flamel's permission because it > > > didn't belong to him. The Prophecy Orb belongs to the Ministry. > > > > > > But I seem to remember that Harry and the gang shot spells at the > > shelves that held other prophecies and they broke at least a > hundred > > of them that did not belong to them. So if they were able to > break > > prophecies that they had nothing to do with, then surely someone > > could have gone in and broke the prophecy that had to do with > Harry > > and Voldemort. > > > > JR > > If someone had walked in to the DoM and destroyed the prophecy > regarding Harry and LV then that person would have heard it, and > while I am still not sure how many people know about the prophecy > itself, IMHO, Dumbledore probably wanted that knowledge limited. > Keeping the only record in the prophecy hall (other than the one in > DD's brain) would at least keep it secret for a while. But I think > this thread brings up a good point: why keep records of the > prophecies at all? Is this the WW version of a hall of records or is > there some other reasoning behind it, other than a really cool plot > device and a positively creepy department of mysteries tour? > Meri And while we're at it, what can be done about all of those lost prophecies (or rather, shadows or copies of prophecies)? Can they somehow be retrieved (placed in new, properly labeled containers and reshelved)? They must be important, or they wouldn't have been stored in the DoM in the first place. What will be the consequences if they're lost forever? Any ideas? Carol From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 26 22:43:05 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:43:05 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89694 Whizbang wrote: I believe Harry says, "I heard you did Mark Evans two nights ago." OotP It was secondhand information. Hard to guess where he may have heard it though. Berit replies: No, Harry says: "I know you did Mark Evans two nights ago - " (OoP p. 17 UK Ed). So the text doesn't say explicitly whether he witnessed it himself or was told/overheard it. But, as I've said before; the way Harry says it it is quite obvious, at least to me, that he is aware of who Mark Evans is. Berit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 23:06:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:06:47 -0000 Subject: Powers of the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > In OOP the room with the veil is referred to by Dumbledore as > the 'death chamber'. > > Does this mean that the wizarding world has an equivalent to the gas > chamber/electric chair? > > I was under the impression that all wizards, even the really bad > ones, were sent to Azkaban. Sirius was convicted (without a trial by > Barty Crouch)of killing 13? people- surely if there is such a thing > as the 'death penalty' for wizards- Sirius alleged actions would > have merited that sentence, but no, he went to prison. > > All of the death eaters who were caught were sent to Azkaban, not > one word about being executed. > > If these people, surely the worst of the worst, weren't even > sentenced to death, who would be? > > Of course, the veil in the 'death chamber' may not be there to serve > that purpose. Perhaps it is there as a portal to death? Death would > be one of the mysteries the the MM would study in the dept. of > mysteries, surely? > > But, if it is a portal to death, and not a death device, then why > couldn't Sirius be retrieved? I don't think thst the term "death chamber" has any connection to, say, gas chamber or the death penalty. The veil is simply the entrance into the realm of dead, with death being one of the great Mysteries that the DoM houses. As for a death penalty, we do see it exercised, and we do see an executioner (MacNair) armed with an axe, but the "condemned" is the hippogriff Buckbeak. Also it would seem that the WW executed human criminals by beheading them in the past, which would account for Nearly Headless Nick and the members of the Headless Hunt he wants to join. (Or maybe they were all executed by Muggles, since they don't appear to be very sinister.) Carol, who will continue to use "Muggle" without apology because she is one, despite its slightly pejorative connotation in the WW From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 23:17:51 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:17:51 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89696 > Whizbang wrote: > Lily never cast a protection charm!??! She died to save Harry. It > was like the bond between a wizard and one who saves his life. The > traces of her love, the love that brought her to die for her child, > are the protection that is still in Harry's blood. Dumbledore cast > a charm that kept Harry protected in the house of Lily's sister. > But even that was based on Lily's blood, given for Harry. It's a > blood bond. Mandy here: How do you know she didn't? And can you back it up with some theory? We don't know what Lily did in Godric's Hollow in the moments right before she died. The only witnesses that event that we know of are Voldemort and Harry. Neither of whom are in much of a position to remember clearly what happened. Yes, Lily died protecting her child, just how she protected him is still a mystery, and one of the big mysteries of the whole saga. We can conclude that she did more than just throw herself in front of her son, because she is not the only mother/witch in history to die saving her child from murder, yet she is the only one to have apparently placed some kind on protection over him that was powerful enough to save him from death. Powerful enough for Harry to be the only human EVER to have survived the Unforgivable Advada Kadava. We also know Lily was good at charm work, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that the combination of her sacrifice and a damn good charm is what saved her son. Lily's protection is far more than her death alone. A thought to ponder over is we know her protection lives in his blood but how did it enter his body? > > Mandy wrote: > > But it is interesting that the scar is in the shape of he "Eihwas" rune symbol meaning protection. > Whizbang wrote: > The rune is the sowelo, representing the sun and the life force. >The scar is Voldemort's life force which he lost when he tried to >kill Harry. Mandy again: The scar can be either depending on which way around it is arranged. The two symbols are mirror images of each other. Unfortunately the books just say it is a lighting bolt and don't specify the direction it takes. We only have the movies to rely on the direction of the scar, personally I don't trust the films completely as they like to change things to create ascetically pleasing results. However I will agree that the meaning can be Life Force or it could be Protection. Interesting that Lily and Voldemort represent both of these elements to Harry in the moment of conflict in Godric's Hollow that night. Perhaps the scar is a combination of both elements? >Whizbang wrote: >It is the scar which connects Harry and Voldemort, and is the mark that makes Harry >Voldemort's equal. Mandy again: Yes, it does, but because it is the only thing that Voldemort's AK left on Harry (as opposed to death or half-life etc) it is also what connects him to his mother's protection of him. As I explained above Harry is the only one to have survived the AK and that survival was because of his mothers sacrifice, the combination of both left Harry with nothing but the scar. > Whizbang: > Harry remembers the green flash followed by the pain in his forehead that the Dudley's had told him happened in the car crash. Mandy again: Yes, but that doesn't' prove it was just Voldemort's AK alone that left Harry with the scar. The power of the rebounding AK combined with Lily's protection is what Harry his famous mark. Cheers Mandy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 23:23:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:23:10 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89697 "whizbang" wrote: > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's right > hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort didn't want to > kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's somehow > manipulated time to come back and save his family. Slight problem. Lily is a Muggleborn, so her father (who was proud of having a witch in the family) was a Muggle who could not have been a Death Eater, much less LV's righthand man. (Maybe that was Snape's harsh and hook-nosed father, but that's a topic for a different post.) Carol, who is quite sure that Mark Evans will show up at Hogwarts in Book 6 and that he's distantly related to Harry, but doesn't think we need to bring in time travel for the connection to be significant From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 23:26:22 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:26:22 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89698 Replying to my own post to say I was mistaken in saying the Runes Eihwas and Sowile are mirror images of each, other they are not. They are almost identical except one is in a slightly more upright position than the other. Mandy From rredordead at aol.com Mon Jan 26 23:33:36 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:33:36 -0000 Subject: Rune Shape. was: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89699 < Geoff: > I wouldn't accept the idea of the eihwas rune. Having looked up >runes to check - since I'm not into them - the rune mentioned >doesn't look at all to me like the description at the beginning of >PS: "they could see a curiously shaped cut like a bolt of >lightning." (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.16-17 UK edition). Mandy here: Actually they do. The Eihwas and the Sowilo both look like the letter Z flipped around, or viewed in a mirror. You could be confusing it with the Ehwaz, which is shaped like an M and means Growth and Movement. The Runes are very similar and complex. Eihwas and the Sowilo are definitely a lighting bolt shape. Cheers Mandy. From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 26 23:45:16 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:45:16 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appropriate terminology In-Reply-To: <20040126132034.60829.qmail@web25008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20040126132034.60829.qmail@web25008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4015A68C.8060806@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89700 anneli lucas wrote: > > I was watching this documentary about the history of cannabis use > and legislation in the US, and it said that 'muggle' used to be another > name for cannabis! > > Anneli Well William Shakespeare used to live on the corner of Muggle St in London for a time. I always thought thats where JKR got the name from. I think there were quack surgeons living around there too. Maybe there is a connection. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 23:40:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:40:56 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bridget" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" > wrote: > > curlyshirleywhirley wrote: > > > > > And, as we also know, Snape knew about Quirrell and LV, and > > continually threatened Quirrell, and once defied him by saving > > Harry's life. LV probably believed Snape had changed sides, which > > is why I don't understand how LV can't at least suspect Snape to > be > > a traitor. Snape walks a very line, and since Rowling has told us > > to watch out for him in interviews, I'm not entirely sure whether > or > > not he can be trusted, even though DD and Hermione both do. Guess > > we'll have to wait and see. > > > I have A theory about why Voldy doesn't suspect Snape after the > Voldy/Quirrell Stuff: Snape didn't or at least wasn't supposed to > know that Voldemort was the reason Quirrell was trying to steal the > Stone and kill Harry. He obvioulsy knew Quirrell was a bad guy and > tried to stop him, but that doesn't mean he knew Voldy was involced. > Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember there being anything saying > that Snape knew about Voldemort. Although I do think snape is > incredibly intelligent and may have figured out what was going on, I > don't believe he let on to know about Voldy if he did know. > Therefore he could conceivably go to Voldy and say something to the > effect of "Master I didn't realize he was working for you, otherwise > i wouldn't have interfered." And would then be welcome back w/ open > arms. If Snape did know, we don't know that Voldy knew Snape knew. > If I've missed anything in the books that says Snape knew about > Voldy being involved and that Voldy knew that Snape knew, please let > me know, cause I haven't seen anything to implicate that, (although > i do tend to get excited while reading the HP books and sometimes > skip paragraphs to get to the exciting stuff faster so and its > possible that I just missed it.) But unless there is reason to > beilieve that Snape knew and that Voldy knows he knew, there is no > reason for Voldy to not let Snape back in as a DE. > -Bridget ( Except for the fact that he remained at Hogwarts when the DEs were summoned to the graveyard. Put that together with Snape's interference with Quirrell and Voldemort has every reason to believe that he wont't return and to wish him dead. Also he could not have come back to Voldemort at any time between Voldemort's vaporization and his reincarnation in GoF to explain the Quirrell situation or for any other reason. And now that so many DEs are in Azkaban, Snape's position is even more dangerous. Carol, who believes that Snape's mission after GoF was to meet with Lucius Malfoy, not return to Voldemort in person From belijako at online.no Mon Jan 26 23:43:31 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:43:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's midriff sensation Was:Re: All the protections in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89702 Christal wrote: Now my question about Umbridge: The first 10 times I read this book (OotP), I seemed to have not registered this part. On page 275 of the American Version, Umbridge is examining Harry's hand the final time. ...At the same time, he had a most peculiar sensation somewhere around his midriff. Now realizing that all throughout the book we are led to assume that this had nothing to do with Umbridge really, but just happened to coincide with Harry being here with her, I am not too sure now. When reading this tonight, this struck me plainly as arousal. A sick and twisted type. Almost as though Voldemort got turned on by this woman. Berit replies: I don't know all the quotes, but I seem to recall Harry gets this peculiar sensation around his midriff (along with the scar hurting) more than once in the book. The incident you are referring to are only the first one. Later on Harry recognizes that the peculiar sensation signifies Voldemort is pleased about something. Harry learns to feel the difference between Voldie being angry and Voldie being happy. I doubt Voldemort was (sexually) aroused by Umbridge when she touched Harry. I doubt he'd be aroused by anybody :-) He just comes across as the sort of guy who is way past caring or feeling those kind of things. I think it more likely it was a coincidence Umbridge happened to touch Harry at the very same moment Harry "detected" Voldemort's contentment. If you read on a few pages (OoP p. 258 UK Ed); the morning after Harry's midriff sensation, the Daily Prophet reports that Sturgis Podmore has just been convicted of trespass and attempted robbery at the Ministry of Magic, and has been sentenced to six months in Azkaban. I think it likely Voldemort's happy mood had something to do with him hearing the news of Podmore's sentence. Berit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 23:50:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:50:17 -0000 Subject: Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > Hitomi wrote: > Ok, I don't know about all that :) But I do actually think Snape is > more than likely a pure-blood, he did refer to Lily as a "mudblood," > neh? And he was in Slytherin, and they seem to be mostly pure- > blood. Though there is still the possiblity Snape was just being > hypocritical. > > Sawsan here: > Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black > ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. No one > mentioned Snape's name while observing it, which leads me to believe > that he is not a pure blood. Most likely if the snape family is > pureblood, their name would be up there and someone would have pointed > it out, being that Snape is really disliked by Harry and Sirius. > > Also, in the piensive scene, when Snape calls Lily a mudblood, she > seemed to take it like, ' I know YOUR not talking'. At least that's > the way I read it. > > SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very Slytherinish :P The tapestry has to be incredibly detailed. Even going back three generations, to Sirius's great grandparents, you'd have four couples (eight people). Another generation back would be sixteen great great grandparents. Sirius and Harry were only looking at the last two generations (their own)--if a twenty-year age difference even constitutes a generation in the WW. If we (the readers) had been allowed to look into the wizarding genealogy that was mentioned as lying nearby, I'm pretty sure that we would have found the Snape family mentioned (and possibly the Potters as well). Sirius, unlike his mother, had no interest in his pureblood relationships except as they affected his relationship with his cousins Bellatrix, Andromeda, and Narcissa and their respective husbands and children, and of course with the Weasleys. He could easily be related to Snape and not even know it. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 00:05:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:05:24 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89704 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana Walter" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" > wrote: > > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's right > > hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort didn't want > to > > kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and he's somehow > > manipulated time to come back and save his family. > > ...only to get beaten up by his own grandson. > > Oh the irony. > > It is kinda a neat idea, though...so who does Mark Evans the 10-year- > old live with in Little Whinging? > -daw His Muggle parents, distant relations of Petunia (who never mentions them or any other members of her family because of Lily). Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 00:33:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:33:54 -0000 Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess In-Reply-To: <003101c3e2a0$9b8d9da0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" wrote: > Sylvia: > I'm sure all of these points have been brought up before, but I am > currently re-reading from the beginning (how many times will I need > to do that before Book 6: Estimate.) and keep discovering things to > ponder. > > > > 2. In the Quidditch chapter(Chapter 11 Page 140 UK edition PS/SS) I > was struck by Hagrid's words: "Can't nothing interfere with a > brookstick, except powerful Dark Magic." Notice he said "any" > brookstick, not just the Nimbus Two Thousand. So any broomstick > wouldn't buck unless there was a powerful hex placed on it.Would this > account for Snape's problem with the brookstick on OOp (Chapter > 26 "Seen and Unforeseen"?) rather than Snape's incompetance. > > Taryn: > But remember, there are people we've come across who just don't have that natural ability on a broomstick. The reason it was obvious that there was something seriously wrong with Harry's was because he IS a natural and he's NEVER had trouble with a broomstick before. Snape, on the other hand, might just be a really bad flyer. > > Carol: If that were the case, he could never have acted as quidditch referee. Carol From hieya at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 00:41:43 2004 From: hieya at hotmail.com (greatlit2003) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:41:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89706 hello everyone! I haven't been here for a while, so Happy New Year! Plenty of characters have died in the story, but none who have been present since the first novel. Cedric was important in one book, Sirius was likeable in two, and we never knew James or Lily. To change the pace of the books will require a death of a long-running character, to create a sense that it *is* a war. Sirius was around for a short while, and his life was already ruined before he was killed. Now, to kill a character like Mrs. Molly Weasley will not only add to the grief, but it will involve a lot more characters' grief than Harry's alone. I know what some of you might say, that Molly is a stable, solid force, an important although secondary character who has never been involved in the books' climaxes. Plus she is Ron's mum, a sweet lady who should not die. I thought some of those rules applied to Sirius before reading OoP. Mr. Weasley's hospitalization, Percy's betrayal, and Fred & George's rebellion is only the beginning of the conflict for the Weasleys. Until now, JKR has focused on the situations *surrounding* Ron in his home life (he has never been an active participant in the quarrels), but ultimately, Ron *is* the most important Weasley character from the reader's pov, and something must happen that drives him over the edge. Furthermore, with Sirius gone, I suspect that Harry will become more dependent on the Weasleys. To remove Mrs. Weasley would completely change the tone of the books, making all of the main characters "grow up". Right now, I have found one clue: When Harry bites into his Easter egg, he feels a lump in his throat, and wonders why some chocolate is making him so emotional (sorry I don't have my book in front of me, but it is after 'Snape's Worst Memory' and before Harry converses with Sirius and Lupin in the fire. It takes place during a conversation in the library with Ginny). It is easy to gloss over this little clue because it is placed right among all the other emotions Harry is having: regarding his father, Snape and Cho. Yet nothing has happened that should logically make Harry cry at that point: He had a recent argument with Cho, but doesn't dwell on it much. He is unsure of his feelings for her, and even tells Ginny that he wants to talk to Sirius, not Cho. Harry was upset by what he saw in the Pensieve, but it made him angry and disturbed, not tearful. And considering Snape's behavior towards him in the aftermath, Harry was relieved that Snape did not talk to him much. Therefore, why did Harry feel like crying? I think the answer lies with the chocolate egg. Mrs. Weasley sends him one every year, and perhaps he knew that this would be the last one he ever got from her, similar to the bad feelings he had when he left Grimmauld Pl after the Christmas holidays. Sorry for the rambling, but thanks for reading my thoughts :) greatlit2003 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 00:54:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:54:45 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "capehoneysuckle" wrote: > lizvega2 wrote: > > I've always wondered how exactly Snape was spying on Voldemort when > > we know that he has the capability of knowing when someone is lying > > to him. I came across an interesting theory: Snape is using > > polyjuice potion containing Barty Crouch jr.'s hair. The proof: > > > > Barty wasn't killed. He was given the dementor's kiss. Victims of > > the kiss are still alive, but comatose. His hair would still be > > usable. > > > > Voldemort doesn't know what happened to Barty Crouch, jr. The last > > thing he knew was Harry touched the Portkey, and was gone from the > > graveyard. Snape left the hospital ward, 'prepared' a little while > > later, to do what? If he was going to spy, which the above quote in > > my estimation confirms this, wouldn't it be easier to return to > > Voldemort as Barty jr., than Snape? > > > > Barty, who did everything VL told him to, including getting Harry > > through the Tri-Wizard Tournament, no easy feat by his own > > admission. VL referred to Barty as his faithful servant, he probably > > wouldn't be probing the feelings of Barty as heavily as Snape. > > > > Can anyone tell me if there's any referance to the public, or even > > the students at Hogwarts finding out the Barty was masquerading as > > Moody? > > Honey: > This is a brilliant theory. It completely explains Snape's > unquestioned presence in LV's inner circle. > > Although canon suggests that the public (at least the Daily Prophet) > is not aware of the Moody/Crouch Jr. masquerade, the Hogwarts students > seem to be aware. In Umbridge's first class, Dean Thomas refers to > Fake Moody thusly: > > 'Hermione put up her hand; Professor Umbridge turned away from her. > > "It is my understanding that my predecessor not only performed illegal > curses in front of you, he actually performed them *on* you --" > > "Well, he turned out to be a maniac, didn't he?" said Dean Thomas hotly.' > > I don't think that it is necessary for the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice > Theory that Crouch's masquerade be a secret. Even if everyone knows > that Crouch escaped from Azkaban and spent a year pretending to be > Moody, it only matters for the theory to work that *LV* not know about > the Dementor's Kiss, and there is no evidence that the Kiss is public > knowledge. The students might speculate about what happened to him > after the scene at the Third Task, but since the Kiss was unwitnessed, > it most likely is only speculation. If Snape had showed up at DE > headquarters shortly after the scene in the graveyard, in disguise as > Crouch Jr., there would be no reason for LV to believe rumors (if he > heard any from, say, Draco Malfoy via Lucius) that Crouch was Kissed. > > The Double Agent Snape Theory, in my opinion, is also very convincing > and consistent with canon. I like the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory > better because it fits so well with the way JKR tends to introduce a > perfectly plausible plot device or character, seems to be done with > it, and then it pops up again in a way that makes us say, "I should > have seen that coming a mile away." Using the Polyjuice Potion yet > again in this way would fit that pattern. > > Just a thought. I'm ready to be convinced of *nearly* anything except > Vampire Snape. (Oops-put my foot in it.) > > Honey The main problem I see with this interesting theory is that the effects of the polyjuice potion only last an hour. Unlike Crouch!Moody, Snape!Crouch wouldn't have a handy hip flask to keep the potion from losing its effects. Also, until the end of OoP, Snape is clearly still on speaking terms with Lucius Malfoy, as he would not be if he had not explained to Malfoy that he could not leave the Tri-Wizard tournament to attend the graveyard meeting. Snape!Crouch would not have given any such explanation, and Snape would be in serious trouble with his DE connections. So, sorry, I don't buy it. But, as Honey says, it's better than Vampire!Snape. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 00:57:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:57:38 -0000 Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Taryn: > > *ponders this* Maybe in Wizard's chess you only own one side, > since your pieces moving how you want depend on you earning their > trust. So it would make sense for each side in a game to own their > own pieces. >>> > > > Perhaps the chessmen are like Pokimon cards or something of that > type. The board is neutral, but each person has different chessmen > that they buy/collect etc. > > Andrew But suppose you had two black (or two white) sets? I also wondered about the two chess sets and can't find a reasonable explanation. Maybe JKR doesn't know anything about chess and it's a Flint? Carol, waiting to be hit with flying chessmen From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 27 01:02:54 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:02:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rune Shape. was: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. References: Message-ID: <004301c3e471$4c76d740$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89709 < Geoff: > I wouldn't accept the idea of the eihwas rune. Having looked up >runes to check - since I'm not into them - the rune mentioned >doesn't look at all to me like the description at the beginning of >PS: "they could see a curiously shaped cut like a bolt of >lightning." (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.16-17 UK edition). Mandy here: Actually they do. The Eihwas and the Sowilo both look like the letter Z flipped around, or viewed in a mirror Anne: The Rune used for Harry's Scar is Sowilo, the rune for "wholeness". It looks exactly like a simple depiction of a thunderbolt or 'sideways' 'z' when held up to a mirror. According to 'The Book of Runes' by Ralph Blum (1982 Hardback, Pg 131), it symbolizes '...the impulse towards self -realization and indicates the path you must follow, not from ulterior motives, but from the core of your individuality...' Actually very fitting for Harry and his entire life in the books if you think about it--learning to become what he is meant to be without becoming selfish or embittered like Voldy has done. "Eihwaz' looks similar, but the outer 'arms' bend back in towards the rune, so that it looks like a verticle line with opposing 'hooks' on either end of it. It represents 'Defence', which is probably why most people confuse which 'rune' Rowling used (If, indeed, she even knew she was using a rune in the first place). As an extra note, because both runes look the same right side up or upside down, they don't have a 'negative' reading when doing runes. Instead, it's more of a call for internal introspection. Third note, to further clear confusiomn as to which rune is which... The third rune being discussed on this thread is 'Ehwaz' (similar in spelling to Eihwaz--another reason to get all confused...lol) This rune looks like an 'M' and represents 'Movement' or change--of self, possession, living space, etc. Basically, your life is about to be overhauled... Hope this helps... Anne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 01:08:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:08:51 -0000 Subject: Creevey brothers & Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89710 Shrijnana: I've wondered about > Petunia's witch status, too. > > When Petunia talks about the dementors in OotP, she talks about them > in the present tense. "They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban." (pg. > 31, US). It made me wonder if she has current information about the > wizarding world. Her explanation that she overheard James telling Lily > about it seemed suspect. Carol: Maybe when Vernon Dursley is at work, Petunis communicates with Mrs. Figg, knowing her to be a squib. Or Mrs. Figg could come for tea whenever there's important news that Petunia needs to hear--not because Petunia is a squib, much less a witch, but because she's his guardian and needs to know his danger. That would explain why Petunia is so uptight, especially if her parents were killed by DEs or dementors. I don't think that Petunia is a witch or a squib--JKR has said she isn't and every single book calls her a Muggle--but clearly she is suppressing information. On two occasions, when she has the opportunity to talk about Lily being a witch or about dementors, that suppressed information comes pouring out. Clearly she knows more about the WW than she wants her husband to know, but that doesn't make her a witch or a squib. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 01:16:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:16:39 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Deanna Benfante > wrote: > > By the way - at the end of one of HP and the Chamber of Secrets, > who is that very thin woman sitting next to Snape with the 'sharp' > nose and the 'slightly' Goth outfit? Is that supposed to be his > wife? > > > > Deanna > > Prof. McGonagal > > Deanna, if I'm thinking of the correct scene, I always assumed that > was Professor Sinistra. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan If you're referring to the film, I've seen her identified as Madam Pince but I don't know whether that's accurate or not. Carol, with apologies for a short post and for being OT From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Tue Jan 27 01:20:31 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:20:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape a pureblood? / Snape's wife? References: Message-ID: <005101c3e473$c1a824e0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89712 If you're referring to the film, I've seen her identified as Madam Pince but I don't know whether that's accurate or not. Carol, with apologies for a short post and for being OT They have her listed as Madam Pince at the Warner Brother's site, so I would hazard a guess it's accurate. ^^ Anne From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 23:45:36 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:45:36 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89713 Mandy: > I do like the idea that Dudley might be born in July. If it turns > out the Petunia and her parents are not who they appear to be, > Dudley's birthday could be significant. > > However don't you think Dumbledore would have mentioned a third > birth in July if that birth had fit the prophecy? Remember clause 3 section 8...Thrice defied Lord Voldemort. Do Petunia and Vernon seem that way at all? Oviously not. Andrew From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 01:30:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:30:04 -0000 Subject: Why it was necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89714 > Ginger wrote: > > > Why is it necessary? That question has pervaded many threads on > this > > list, most recently the "is too"/"is not" Snape is (not) a vampire > > thread. The request for "why it was necessary" got me thinking > about > > why other things in the book were necessary. > > (Interesting Harry & Neville theory snipped) > > > And that's why I think it was all necessary. > > Can you explain what you mean by something being 'necessary' in the > series? > > For myself, I don't know if it was necessary that Sirius die. I can > speculate as to the author's purpose in killing off this character, > and then as to whether that purpose could have been achieved any > other way. Even if the answer is no, that doesn't prove necessity, > because of the place of that purpose in the author's wider aims. > > Please understand I'm not knocking the concept. I just feel it > needs a bit more definition. > > David I'm not sure what Ginger means by "necessary," but when I asked the same question in relation to the Snape!vampire theory, I meant (as specified in my post) What does it accomplish? How does it advance the plot or our understanding of Snape's motives? I still say that having Snape as a vampire (or Ron as Dumbledore) serves no purpose. Both Snape's motivations and Dumbledore's wisdom (it isn't omniscience) can be revealed without resorting to stale devices like vampires and time travel. Possibly Ginger was using "necessary" in some other way, but as you've snipped her post, I can't really tell. I assume that her concerns are the same as mine: character development and advancing the plot. IIRC, she was arguing that Sirius's death will bring Neville and Harry to a mutual understanding and friendship. That makes sense to me in a way that vampire!Snape never can. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 01:47:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:47:47 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > Karen wrote: > > Snape tried to save Harry because he > > knew that someone had enchanged his broom to throw him off. Snape > > was doing a counter charm. That does not necessarily mean that > > Snape knew who performed the initial curse. However, in Harry's final > > showdown with Quirrel/Voldemort, Quirrel/Voldemort tells Harry > > that Snape had tried to save him. This produces a couple of questions. > > > > *First, did Q/V just assume that Snape was saving a student and > > not actively working against him? > > > > *Second, would Q/V have considered Snape no longer a follower > > since he was working against him, whether consciously or unconciously? > > > > Snape had the interesting conversation with Quirrel outside the > > Library wanting to know where his loyalties were. Knowing what we > > now know, we assume that Snape was warning Quirrel not to be > > working for Voldemort. However, if that is true, Quirrel/Voldemort would > > now know that Snape is working against him. Snape would be no good as > > a "double agent". > > > > If Snape was warning Quirrel to not go against the Dark Lord, then > > Snape was and is playing a triple agent game, and cannot be > > trusted at all. I'm not jumping on the "Evil Snape" bandwagon, but he > > cannot be infiltrating Voldemort's camp without Voldemort knowing that he > > is spying for Dumbledore. Either Snape's OotP activies are of a > > different nature, or he doesn't know that Voldemort is on to him, > > or else he is actually working for Lord Thingy. > > Hitomi now: > Don't you just love how this entire situation that we've been > discussing is completely ambiguous?! (And Karen, you brought up > excellent points I hadn't bothered to think about, thank you!) > > The entire situation could go either way, we don't know enough about > what Snape was thinking, which is the problem in Books 4 and 5, in > wondering whether or not we can trust him. I agree, I find it > highly unlikely LV is completely ignorant of Snape's actions. It > doesn't add up with what we know of LV's character, and I rather > suspect that LV probably suspects anyone and everyone, even Lucius > and Bellatrix. Personally, I don't really trust Snape. He acts as > a third party most of the time; we never know his true intentions,. > And we don't know enough about him for me to trust him, I don't care > what his past, it's no excuse to have ever joined the ranks of the > Death Eaters. And I wonder sometimes, being a Death Eater, did he > kill Muggles and Muggle-borns, too? There's just too much we don't > know. And I know DD and Hermione trust him, but we now know DD can > make mistakes, and Hermione's trust is based mostly off of DD's. > And JKR told us to watch out for Snape. I'm willing to trust him, > just not yet. > > ~ Hitomi, who has never liked Snape, but is willing to give him the > benefit of the doubt I doubt that Dumbledore would trust Snape (as he clearly does and often states) if Snape (who was very young when he joined the DEs) had ever killed a Muggle or a Muggle-born. Nor would he have hired him as a teacher. Carol From kking0731 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 00:17:17 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:17:17 -0500 Subject: Harry's midriff sensation Was:Re: All the protections in Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89716 Christal wrote: ...At the same time, he had a most peculiar sensation somewhere around his midriff. Kathy: When I read this line it just reminded me so much of the portkey sensation that Harry felt. Not that it means anything, just thought I'd mention it. Kathy From annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 27 01:43:17 2004 From: annelilucas at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?anneli=20lucas?=) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:43:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040127014317.13478.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89717 Taryn: > *ponders this* Maybe in Wizard's chess you > only own one side, Andrew: > The board is neutral, but each person has > different chessmen that they buy/collect etc. Carol: > But suppose you had two black (or two white) sets? Anneli: Maybe people have chess sets that are sufficiently different from each other that it wouldn't matter if both sides were the same colour - each set may be unique, and if some people have inherited them there would likely be even more variation as they're from different time periods. Maybe wizarding chess pieces aren't white or black, but are realistic colours (if you get my meaning). Anneli From capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net Tue Jan 27 02:02:40 2004 From: capehoneysuckle at earthlink.net (capehoneysuckle) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:02:40 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89718 lizvega2 gave a brilliant theory proposing that Snape is spying on LV by means of impersonating Crouch Jr via polyjuice potion. Carol responded: > The main problem I see with this interesting theory is that the > effects of the polyjuice potion only last an hour. Unlike > Crouch!Moody, Snape!Crouch wouldn't have a handy hip flask to keep the > potion from losing its effects. Also, until the end of OoP, Snape is > clearly still on speaking terms with Lucius Malfoy, as he would not be > if he had not explained to Malfoy that he could not leave the > Tri-Wizard tournament to attend the graveyard meeting. Snape!Crouch > would not have given any such explanation, and Snape would be in > serious trouble with his DE connections. I think Carol is convincing, but I'm going to play the devil's advocate anyway. Carol's first argument against the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory is pretty convincing. LV might be so thankful to have his number one DE back that he isn't paying close attention, but he would still probably eventually pick up on the imposter constantly excusing himself to slug down a booster dose of PJ. I think the other point might be gotten around. In reality, Snape doesn't go to the graveyard because LV knows he has gone over to DD's team. When Snape sees Lucius Malfoy later, in private, he explains that he is pretending to work for DD, but secretly a double agent for LV. He swears Malfoy to secrecy because of his fear of a double agent in the DE corp. Thus Malfoy is not surprised that Snape never turns up in person at the DE gatherings, but is still friendly to him in private. Snape does this in order to maintain a second source of information from the DE corp, since Crouch, being LV's right hand man, may not be in a position to hear the gossip amongst the troops. Hmm...I'm afraid the Snape/Crouch/PJ Theory is morphing into the Snape Double Agent Theory. Well, let's just say that I'm convinced. Honey From kohararpo at yahoo.com Mon Jan 26 19:17:21 2004 From: kohararpo at yahoo.com (kohararpo) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:17:21 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89719 Mandy: > Absolutely it is protecting him. I subscribe to the theory that the > scar was burned in to Harry's forehead by his mother casting the > protection charm and not by Voldemort casting the AK curse. > The scar could be responsible for AK backfiring and it could happen > again if someone else tries it on Harry. That's an interesting theory, and I'd say it's possible. I think some other force had to be present to prevent little Harry from being killed by that curse. What are the odds that it would backfire then? Because of the emphasis on Lily's protection, especially in book 5, I'd say that makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand, if Lily put the scar there, how could it be a link to Voldemort? Maybe the appearance of the scar was a combination of Lily's protection charm and Voldemort's attempted curse? From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 27 02:38:05 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:38:05 +1300 Subject: Dumbledore and Snape - Does Snape report. Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20040127152612.026eaec0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 89720 I was at it again today, reading the books for the umpteenth time. Have included the section with reference below. I'd be interested in other's impressions. This memory of Dumbledore's that he takes out of the pensive for Harry to see. I know Harry only sees a tiny amount. But when Snape is talking. I went back and checked the other parts of the book where Karkaroff and Snape were together, and came back without any clues that Dumbledore was anywhere near. Also, I wonder what memory of harry it would of been before the change. Reading this however, I would have to assume that Snape would have to have regular reporting sessions to Dumbledore for this to be part of Dumbledore's memories. Any thoughts? Tanya ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOF PG 386/387 "You mean . . . that stuff's your thoughts?" Harry said, staring at the swirling white substance in the basin. "Certainly," said Dumbledore. "Let me show you." Dumbledore drew his wand out of the inside of his robes and placed the tip into his own silvery hair, near his temple. When he took the wand away, hair seemed to be clinging to it - but then Harry saw that it was in fact a glistening strand of the same strange silvery-white substance that filled the Pensieve. Dumbledore added this fresh thought to the basin, and Harry, astonished, saw his own face swimming around the surface of the bowl. Dumbledore placed his long hands on either side of the Pensieve and swirled it, rather as a gold prospector would pan for fragments of gold.... and Harry saw his own face change smoothly into Snape's, who opened his mouth and spoke to the ceiling, his voice echoing slightly. "It's coming back . . . Karkaroff's too . . . stronger and clearer than ever..." "A connection I could have made without assistance," Dumbledore sighed, "but never mind." He peered over the top of his half-moon spectacles at Harry, who was gaping at Snape's face, which was continuing to swirl around the bowl. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 02:59:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:59:12 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" wrote: > > well, obviously this can't be Harry's perspective, can it? In fact > the whole book's opening isn't. Then, WHO is it leading the reader? > I know a time I argued against the case of Harry's death: "Well, WHO > do you reckon will continue telling the story once Harry is dead, > since apparently HE is the narrator in some way? You know Rowling > promised us epilogues." > > > Probably the very same WHO, who inaugurated the series, to answer my > own question, as weird as this is. maybe, just maybe, Madame Rowling was a bit unsteady in > her use of viewpoints in her first novel, since a bit later in the > very same book- and after that never ever again- she switches from > her literary a- look- over- Harry's- shoulder- angle to a very err > independent one: Carol responds: Simply put, JKR never writes directly from Harry's point of view--a first-person narrator wouldn't work for her books. Instead she uses a limited omniscient third-person narrator who can get inside some character's heads but not others. In SS/PS chapter one, this narrator gives us Vernon Dursley's thoughts but is not limited to his point of view. We're shown wizards and owls and so forth that he can't see because he isn't looking out his window. We also see the cat he encounters earlier (dismissing the thought that it's reading a map), which transforms into Professor McGonagall after Vernon Dursley leaves the scene. Then we see Professor Dumbledore and Hagrid and hear their three-way conversation. We do not, however, know their thoughts: This narrator's omniscience is still limited. She (or he) either can't or won't get inside these character's minds. You can think of that narrator as JKR herself if you choose. She (the narrator) seems to be at her most reliable here--and we can trust her statement about the Dursleys being Muggles because it's made from this outside point of view, not Harry's (or Uncle Vernon's). Most of the rest of the series, with the notable and obvious exception of the first chapter of GoF (which is partly objective reporting and partly through the eye and ears of the old Muggle, Frank Bryce), is written from Harry's point of view, though Harry is not the narrator. But once in awhile, as when Hermione in the stands sets fire to Snape's robes while Harry is struggling to stay on his broomstick, the narrator moves away from Harry's perspective. The story teller is still a limited omniscient narrator who can't get inside Hermione's head, but nevertheless in this scene and a few others (as when Neville is lying awake at night and Harry doesn't know it), the point of view is not Harry's. I'm quite sure that JKR knows exactly what she's doing in occasionally manipulating the point of view. In fact, I think we can trust the narrator most fully in scenes that are outside Harry's perspective. Note, for example, chapter 2 of SS/PS, where we've slipped for the first time into Harry's POV. We're told by the narrator that Harry's parents were killed in a car accident. The information is presented quite matter of factly, as if it were true, but it is in fact "true" only from Harry's perspective, based on what he knows or thinks he knows, but in the narrator's words, not his. We find out later, through Hagrid, that this supposed truth is a deliberate lie invented by the Dursley's. But that passage is our first hint that Harry's point of view is not always reliable--which leads to lively discussions and varying interpretations of the books so far. I hope, though, that as Harry learns more and understands other characters better, his point of view will become more reliable in the sixth and seventh books. In any case, we can expect the point of view to change again in the Epilogue, not because Harry will be dead, but because epilogues are traditionally written from an objective, omniscient point of view, reporting "facts" about the lives of the characters after the main events of the story without getting inside anyone's head: "And true to Professor Trelawney's prediction, Harry lived a long and happy life. He and his wife Ginny, who went into retirement together after twenty exciting years as aurors, produced twelve children, six boys and six girls, all of whom had red hair and green eyes. Ron and Hermione, who remained aurors into their eighties, produced two bushy-haired girls, both of whom became dentists." Okay, I'm being silly here, but you see what I mean about the narrative viewpoint no longer being Harry's. Carol, who apologizes for having written a treatise when she meant to write a paragraph and for not providing page numbers From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 03:04:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:04:16 -0000 Subject: Seventh month Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer Palmares" wrote: > I've been wondering about this myself. Dudley and Aunt Petunia must > be squibs. I've also been thinking about the prophecy lately, and > what it says about a child being born in the seventh month. Wasn't > Dudley also born in July? Maybe its just a red herring. Something > to think about anyhow. As others have pointed out, Dudley was born in June--not to mention that his parents had not "thrice defied" Lord Voldemort and LV had not "marked him as his equal." Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 03:10:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:10:37 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne" > wrote: > > > > > (PS/SS) > > > > >>"The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, > > Harry" > > > > Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him. He looked back at > the whisperers as if he wanted to say something to them, but > thought better of it. > > > > > well, obviously this can't be Harry's perspective, can it? In > fact > > the whole book's opening isn't. Then, WHO is it leading the > reader? > > > > > > > I know a time I argued against the case of Harry's death: "Well, > WHO do you reckon will continue telling the story once Harry is > dead, since apparently HE is the narrator in some way? You > know Rowling promised us epilogues." > > > > > > > > Probably the very same WHO, who inaugurated the series, to > answer my own question, as weird as this is. > > > > > > > (PS/SS) > > >>"Dunno what Harry thinks he's doing," Hagrid mumbled. He > stared through his binoculars. "If I didn' know better, I'd say he'd > lost control of his broom but he can't have " > > > > You see my point: this whole scene simply ISN'T Harry's > point of view <<< > > I always thought the narrator for the second quote might be > Dumbledore. Who else would know that Snape never found out > who set him on fire? That would argue that Dumbledore is going > to survive the series...I imagine him retired on that beach Harry > thought of, with suntan lotion on his long nose. > > And you know, if Dumbledore were the narrator for the first quote, > that solves a great mystery. We then know how he spent the > missing twenty-four hours. He was invisible, following Mr. > Dursley around and using Legilimency to read his thoughts. > > Pippin The narrator is just a voice, not a character. Usually but not always he or she sees from Harry's point of view, but sometimes it's as if the narrator is an invisible presence witnessing and reporting events from the outside. We're treated at one point to Vernon Dursley's thought (though not really his perspective) and at another to Frank Bryce's. I very much doubt that Dumbledore will ever be the POV character, simply because he needs to remain mysterious. Who else would know that Snape never found out who set him on fire? JKR. Carol From erikal at magma.ca Tue Jan 27 04:21:44 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and the chocolate egg Message-ID: <013101c3e48d$12d3d4e0$27a31a40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 89724 greatlit2003 wrote: >Right now, I have found one clue: When >Harry bites into his Easter >egg, he feels a lump in his throat, and >wonders why some chocolate >is making him so emotional >It is easy to gloss over this little >clue because it is placed >right among all the other emotions >Harry is having: regarding his >father, Snape and Cho. Yet nothing has >happened that should >logically make Harry cry at that point: >He had a recent argument >with Cho, but doesn't dwell on it much. >He is unsure of his feelings >for her, and even tells Ginny that he >wants to talk to Sirius, not >Cho. Harry was upset by what he saw in >the Pensieve, but it made him >angry and disturbed, not tearful. And >considering Snape's behavior >towards him in the aftermath, Harry was >relieved that Snape did not >talk to him much. Therefore, why did >Harry feel like crying? I think >the answer lies with the chocolate egg. >Mrs. Weasley sends him one >every year, and perhaps he knew that >this would be the last one he >ever got from her, similar to the bad >feelings he had when he left >Grimmauld Pl after the Christmas >holidays. Now me Erika (Wolfraven): Actually, I do think the lump in Harry's throat has a lot to do with the Pensieve scene. You see, the way I read the passage, it's not the egg itself, but the Snitches on the wrapping that causes it. She handed him a handsome chocolate egg decorated with small, iced Snitches [...] Harry looked at it for a moment, then, to his horror, felt a lump rise in his throat. (577 UK) James Potter was toying with a Snitch in the Pensieve scene so I think the sight of the them on the wrapping reminds him of his father and what he saw in the Pensieve. And while it's true that Harry was angered by what he saw I think he likely also felt disappointed. After all, up until that point he had only ever heard good things about his father and he'd essentially set him on a pedestal. He had an idealized vision of his father, and seeing how James acted in the Pensieve scene was certainly a huge disappointment. So I really must disagree that "nothing has happened that should logically make Harry cry". He already lost James as a real father and in OoP he also loses him as am ideal father-figure. The same thing happens with Sirius, and, if anything, I think the egg can be seen as a faint foreshadowing of it. Now I'm not sure if the egg in this scene could also foreshadow the death of Mrs Weasley, as was suggested, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I do think there's something sinister about eggs in the series as a whole. Usually eggs are symbolically associated with promise and new life. In HP, they seem to have a reverse symbolism as they're consistently associated with disappointment and death. Here are a couple of minor examples. First, Mrs Weasley's Easter eggs in GoF... When Hermione receives hers and discovers it to be considerably smaller than those sent to the boys, she realizes that Mrs. Weasley believes Skeeter's article and is obviously quite upset by this. So, instead of promise, we get disappointment. We also get to see a dragon egg in PS. There again we see disaster associated with eggs. Hagrid's excited at first but he ends up disappointed while Harry and Hermione end up quite miserable due to the loss of house points resulting from the whole Norbert debacle. But here's the really good example: the golden egg in GoF. Cedric gives Harry a big clue about how to solve the puzzle of the egg. This is part of the growing friendship, or cooperation at the very least, between these two competitors; it works very well with the theme of unity which comes up at the end of GoF and during OoP. But how does that end? Cedric dies as a result of his cooperation with Harry. If Harry had gone for the cup alone, Cedric would have lived. So, whatever promise there might have been is replaced by death. To further this connection, there's the fact that Moaning Myrtle is also tied to the egg. She's in the bathroom when Harry tries to work out the clue, and she's the one who suggests that he put the egg underwater . So there's another link between the egg and death rather than rebirth. So, I think if we go back to Norbert for a moment we can see his hatching as emblematic of what eggs represent in the series: they seem to offer promise, but what hatches for them is violent and dangerous. The same is true in CoS. After all, Basilisks are born from chickens' eggs. So again, the egg, which normally promises new life, only results in the birth of something monstrous. If you look at this pattern it's also interesting to note that the Phoenix, which is clearly a symbol of new life or resurrection, is a bird which doesn't lay eggs as it rises from its own ashes. All right then, end of ramble. Best, Erika (Wolfraven) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 03:46:22 2004 From: sarcasticmuppet at yahoo.com (sarcasticmuppet) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:46:22 -0000 Subject: Chicken or Egg/Bucking Broomsticks/Wizard chess In-Reply-To: <20040127014317.13478.qmail@web25001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, anneli lucas wrote: > Taryn: > > *ponders this* Maybe in Wizard's chess you > > only own one side, > > Andrew: > > The board is neutral, but each person has > > different chessmen that they buy/collect etc. > > Carol: > > But suppose you had two black (or two white) sets? > > > Anneli: > Maybe people have chess sets that are sufficiently > different from each other that it wouldn't matter if > both sides were the same colour - each set may be > unique, and if some people have inherited them there > would likely be even more variation as they're from > different time periods. Maybe wizarding chess pieces > aren't white or black, but are realistic colours (if > you get my meaning). > > Anneli Could you imagine what would happen if you tried to command someone else's chess pieces to move? I'm sure that even if the players could forget whose pieces are whose, the pieces certainly would not. --sarcasticmuppet-- From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 03:48:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:48:28 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89726 > wrote: > > Lupin's vampire essay has been cited as evidence that Snape is a > > vampire, but the essay shows has nothing to do with Snape. It has > > already been assigned before Snape tries to stop Harry from sneaking > > into Hogsmeade. > > "K" > Yes, but it was assigned after the werewolf incident. > Carol: Not immediately afterwards. More than three months afterwards. Please see the dates I provided from the calendar in the Lexicon. Snape's essay is assigned on November 5, Lupin's in the week preceding February 12. Lupin's can't be a response to Snape's. There are weeks and weeks of unidentified creatures in between. Carol From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 01:19:36 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:19:36 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89727 "whizbang" wrote: > > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's > > right hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort > > didn't want to kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and > > he's somehow manipulated time to come back and save his family. Carol: > Slight problem. Lily is a Muggleborn, so her father (who was proud > of having a witch in the family) was a Muggle who could not have > been a Death Eater, much less LV's righthand man. Whizbang: Fair enough. So he had nothing to do with Voldy. Except something happened to the Evanses. I think Voldy was involved. And if Mark Evans is related to Harry, Dumbledore can't be trusted to tell the truth. It's not just omission. It's a falsehood. daw: > > ...only to get beaten up by his own grandson. > > > > Oh the irony. > > > > It is kinda a neat idea, though...so who does Mark Evans the 10- > > year-old live with in Little Whinging? Carol: > His Muggle parents, distant relations of Petunia (who never > mentions them or any other members of her family because of Lily). Whizbang: Oops! ;) Lost in the translation. The original premise was that Mark Evans is actually Lily and Petunia's father who has manipulated time and shown up to help Harry. From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Tue Jan 27 03:14:23 2004 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:14:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Message-ID: <8b.204dad9.2d47318f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89728 Kathy: > Joy, you stated "Would D'Dore have gone to those lengths to get > a spy in the deatheaters? > I found a passage in OoP on pg. 839 that suggests that he would > and has gone to many extreme lengths when it comes to Harry. DD > says "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people > and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the > here and now you were alive...". To what extent might he have > gone if he put Harry's safety above all else? Wow Kathy, thanks for sharing that. You know I'm beginning to wonder if DD is really a good guy or not sometimes, lol. Seriously though I didn't recall that quote, thanks for bringing it to my attention. It does make one wonder what lengths DD might go to sometimes in achieving his goals.... Joy From Tigerstormxx at aol.com Mon Jan 26 22:43:52 2004 From: Tigerstormxx at aol.com (james320152002) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:43:52 -0000 Subject: Lost prophecies? (Re: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89729 Carol wrote: > And while we're at it, what can be done about all of those lost > prophecies (or rather, shadows or copies of prophecies)? Can they > somehow be retrieved (placed in new, properly labeled containers > and reshelved)? They must be important, or they wouldn't have been > stored in the DoM in the first place. What will be the consequences > if they're lost forever? Any ideas? I think that given the circumstances no criminal charges will be filed against Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna. "james320152002" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 04:56:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:56:45 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <20040126170853.54587.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, An'nai Jiriki wrote: > > --- spang_b wrote: > > Hi, > > Inge wrote: > > I just wondered if maybe the reason Dumbledore > > trusts him so much - > > > could it be that the reason Snape became a Death > > Eater in the first > > > place was by Dumbledore's request? That Dumbledore > > wanted a spy as > > > close to Voldemort as possible and Snape was the > > best choise? > > > > > spang writes: > > This means that Snape had indeed become a death > > eater and later cut > > loose from the outfit. > > > Just because DD said it, does not mean it is true. As > we have seen with Harry, DD does not tell the whole > truth. (Since I do not have the book with me) Does > anyone have the exact quote? I do not beleive it says > that Snape turned from Voldemort exaclty, but just > that he turned. The 'great personal cost' may have > been his friends and family, and not his risk of death > at Voldie's hands. > > Chris Dumbledore's exact words were: "I have given evidence already on this matter. Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (GoF Am. ed. 590-91). So it *is* the risk to his own life that is at stake. It's also important that Snape went to Dumbledore before Voldemort's fall. And note DD's statement that Snape *rejoined* the good side. I wonder what that means, exactly. I'm guessing that as a schoolboy, he was considered to be on the good side by default, than was seduced away by Lucius ("Lucifer") Malfoy with promises of recognition for his exceptional skill in the Dark Arts. Something he saw or was asked to do was so revolting to him that he was willing to ask Dumbledore for forgiveness, for a second chance, as we're told elsewhere. So he was made a spy, proved his worth and his courage, and was made a teacher just before or just after Voldemort's fall (he's been teaching at Hogwarts for fourteen years in OoP, when Harry is in his fifth year, and Voldemort would have fallen on Halloween fourteen years previously, when Harry was fifteen months old). So Snape did turn from Voldemort and Dumbledore has reason to trust him beyond the courage and skill he showed as a spy. The questions still remain: Why did he join? (My answer is only a guess.) Why did he leave? How did he escape detection by the other DEs? (I think that he assumed that he was playing their own game, pretending to return to the good side.) And how is he getting away with it now? But the great personal risk is not in question, and we see it again at the end of GoF. Carol, who thinks Snape is an endlessly fascinating character and can't wait to see what he does in Book 6 From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 05:16:18 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:16:18 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "capehoneysuckle" wrote: > lizvega2 gave a brilliant theory proposing that Snape is spying on LV > by means of impersonating Crouch Jr via polyjuice potion. > > Carol responded: > > The main problem I see with this interesting theory is that the > > effects of the polyjuice potion only last an hour. > > Carol's first argument against the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory is > pretty convincing. LV might be so thankful to have his number one DE > back that he isn't paying close attention, but he would still probably > eventually pick up on the imposter constantly excusing himself to slug > down a booster dose of PJ. Unless this is the answer to the metamorphmagus clue... Betta smaragdina From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Tue Jan 27 05:36:58 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:36:58 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89732 Hi, carol wrote: How did he escape detection by the other DEs? (I think that he > assumed that he was playing their own game, pretending to return to > the good side.) And how is he getting away with it now? spang writes: I think the reason that the other death eaters wouldn't close in on Snape was that he was at Hogwarts. Remember it's supposed to be a safe place and I think it has been breached physically only once, by the fake Moody in GoF. And also, after Voldemort's fall all his supporters were either outside Azkaban or inside it. Those outside worked hard to be outide and I doubt they would ever have risked their positions to get Snape out. And those inside Azkaban were in no position to touch Snape until relased, were they? But, in GoF, Voldemort promises that Snape will be killed. Whther ultimately Snape is alive or not, its beyond doubt that he is in great danger and we will see quite some action in next book all about killing or saving Snape. I am in fact surprised that no attempt has been made on his life so far. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 05:56:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:56:39 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > "whizbang" wrote: > > > Mark Evans is Lily and Petunia's father who was Voldemort's > > > right hand man until Lily was killed. That's why Voldemort > > > didn't want to kill her. He fled after Voldemort's fall and > > > he's somehow manipulated time to come back and save his family. > > Carol: > > Slight problem. Lily is a Muggleborn, so her father (who was proud > > of having a witch in the family) was a Muggle who could not have > > been a Death Eater, much less LV's righthand man. > > Whizbang: > Fair enough. So he had nothing to do with Voldy. Except something > happened to the Evanses. I think Voldy was involved. And if Mark > Evans is related to Harry, Dumbledore can't be trusted to tell the > truth. It's not just omission. It's a falsehood. > > > > It is kinda a neat idea, though...so who does Mark Evans the 10- > > > year-old live with in Little Whinging? > > Carol: > > His Muggle parents, distant relations of Petunia (who never > > mentions them or any other members of her family because of Lily). > > Whizbang: > Oops! ;) Lost in the translation. > The original premise was that Mark Evans is actually Lily > and Petunia's father who has manipulated time and shown up to > help Harry. Carol: A theory which I had rejected. :-) See my "slight problem" comment above. I happen to think that Mark Evans is a distant relative of Harry's who will show up as a Muggle-born wizard at Hogwarts in Book 6. As for Voldemort somehow harming Petunia's family, I agree that that's probable. But the whole "Mark Evans is Harry's grandfather" idea can't work because Harry's maternal grandfather was a Muggle. Clear now, I hope? Carol, who pleads guilty to insufficient snipping, which may have muddled the clarity (or at least the intended context) of my last response. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 06:01:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:01:42 -0000 Subject: Lost prophecies? (Re: All the protections in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's St In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "james320152002" wrote: > Carol wrote: > > > And while we're at it, what can be done about all of those lost > > prophecies (or rather, shadows or copies of prophecies)? Can they > > somehow be retrieved (placed in new, properly labeled containers > > and reshelved)? They must be important, or they wouldn't have been > > stored in the DoM in the first place. What will be the consequences > > if they're lost forever? Any ideas? > > > I think that given the circumstances no criminal charges will be > filed against Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna. > > "james320152002" True. But I wasn't worried about criminal charges against the kids or even the DEs. I want to know how the lost prophecies (not their crystal containers) can be replaced. If those ghostly echoes were the only record of those prophecies and there's no transcription onto paper (er, parchment), are the prophecies themselves lost forever? It seems to me a significant loss. Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 27 07:52:40 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:52:40 -0000 Subject: Rune Shape. was: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > < Geoff: > > I wouldn't accept the idea of the eihwas rune. Having looked up > >runes to check - since I'm not into them - the rune mentioned > >doesn't look at all to me like the description at the beginning of > >PS: "they could see a curiously shaped cut like a bolt of > >lightning." (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.16-17 UK edition). Mandy: > Actually they do. The Eihwas and the Sowilo both look like the letter > Z flipped around, or viewed in a mirror. > > You could be confusing it with the Ehwaz, which is shaped like an M > and means Growth and Movement. The Runes are very similar and > complex. > > Eihwas and the Sowilo are definitely a lighting bolt shape. Geoff: Maybe a matter of personal interpretation but the runes I glanced at on sunnyway.com/runes (and I did look at eihwas and not ehwaz) didn't make me think of a lightning bolt. Though I must say that I am not into runes. From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 27 04:39:45 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:39:45 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89736 Carol wrote: His Muggle parents, distant relations of Petunia (who never mentions them or any other members of her family because of Lily). Sawsan here: Is that your hypothesis, or is that something in canon? if so I would really like to read about it if you can give me the references. Mark Evans, I think, will have some relevance in the next two books. It is interesting how she brought him up as well as finally introducing Petunia and Lily's maiden name. But the thing that gets me is that Dumbledore clearly stated that Petunia was Harry's last living relative on his mother's side.(don't remember the exact quote in OotP) I wonder how Mark will play into all of this with this with that fact hanging over our heads. Sawsan From sawsan_issa at earthlink.net Tue Jan 27 04:53:26 2004 From: sawsan_issa at earthlink.net (sawsan_issa) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:53:26 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89737 Mandy wrote: I subscribe to the theory that the > scar was burned in to Harry's forehead by his mother casting the > protection charm and not by Voldemort casting the AK curse. Sawsan here: I don't think that Lily could have created that scar because when Harry went to Ollivander's, Ollivander states that it is curious that Harry's wand could choose him, when its brother gave him that scar. We know that Lily did not have a pheonix feather scar. I think she had a unicorn hair one or something. Anyhow, I don't think that Lily could have given Harry that scar, the possibility that both Lily and Voldi did just out of the result of both spells being cast on Harry, but I think Voldi is the actual one who scarred Harry. After all the prophecy states: he will mark him as his equal. From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jan 27 08:44:37 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:44:37 -0000 Subject: Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" > wrote: >> > Sawsan here: > > Well if we remember back to OotP at Grimmauld Place, the Black > > ancestry listed the pureblood families who intermarried. No one > > mentioned Snape's name while observing it, which leads me to believe > > that he is not a pure blood. Most likely if the snape family is > > pureblood, their name would be up there The Black Family tapestry cannot be taken as a full and authoritative list of the pureblood families. While Sirius's remark that "the pureblood families are all interrelated" OOP P105, UK Edition seems not to admit of any exceptions, there is AT LEAST one definite stated pureblood family who are not referred to, or present in the tapestry: The Longbottoms - who are precisely stated in COS to be purebloods. > > > > Also, in the piensive scene, when Snape calls Lily a mudblood, she > > seemed to take it like, ' I know YOUR not talking'. At least that's > > the way I read it. Use of the "mudblood" slur, again does not exactly determine the purebloodeness of the slurrer. Snape does use it, and I do not think he has any intention at that moment other than insult. Yes, indeed he is under stress at that point, which does NOT excuse such a slur. Being under stress does NOT excuse racist abuse. Full stop and that's the point of that moment. At least one mixed blood wizard uses the slur - Tom Riddle in COS. Which means it is NOT exclusive to purebloods, but that pureblood wanabees use it too. > > > > SO i do not think Snape is a pureblood, but still is very > Slytherinish :P Tom Riddle is again proof that Slytherin will at least accept mixed blood wizards, though it seems almost certain that Muggle borns, like Hermione would not be admitted. > > > The tapestry has to be incredibly detailed. Even going back three > generations, to Sirius's great grandparents, you'd have four couples > (eight people). Another generation back would be sixteen great great > grandparents. Sirius and Harry were only looking at the last two > generations (their own)--if a twenty-year age difference even > constitutes a generation in the WW. If we (the readers) had been > allowed to look into the wizarding genealogy that was mentioned as > lying nearby, I'm pretty sure that we would have found the Snape > family mentioned (and possibly the Potters as well). Sirius, unlike > his mother, had no interest in his pureblood relationships except as > they affected his relationship with his cousins Bellatrix, Andromeda, > and Narcissa and their respective husbands and children, and of course > with the Weasleys. He could easily be related to Snape and not even > know it. Not a family connection that Snape would probably welcome with any great enthusiasm. Snape as pureblood: Pros and cons in summation - Pro: Head of Slytherin Uses the Mudblood racial insult Snape was a Death Eater and therefore at least a one time supporter of Voldemort, which may imply pureblooded support for Voldemort's anti-Muggle views. He is apparently friendly with and respected by Lucius Malfoy, who will have very little to do with Muggle borns and mixed blood families. Con: Mixed blood students are or have been in Slytherin (Riddle). Tom Riddle was of mixed blood and is the biggest pro-pureblood fanatic of the lot. Snape may by a kind of mini-Riddle. Like many senior Nazis in Germany - Snape may well have suppressed certain unwanted details of his ancestry. It's a class thing: He comes over to me as rather aristocratic. He certainly has the arrogance and the hauteur. I've studied the argument that certain behaviour of Snape in canon is at odds with the concept of his being upper class, ie the swearing and the spitting. Not so. Aristocrats, certainly many British ones, do not feel they have any duty to behave well. If they behave well, it is because they want to. "Noblesse Oblige" is a French remark and not a British one! They do not see themselves as bound by petit bourgeois definitions of what is "good form" and therefore will spit and swear if they feel like it. Equally, I will in the spirit of fairness point out, before someone does it for me, that he shows no such self-assurance in OOP - "Snape's Worst Memory". However, while his birth may well have been honourable, it looks to me very much as though his family background was impoverished. This may account for the dingy appearance and lack of confidence. Imagine coming from a good family and not having the wealth that you feel ought to go with it! Which would add an extra reason for his joining Voldemort's cause. Such a person would be a sitting duck for Voldemort's anti-Muggle line. June From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 06:41:44 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:41:44 -0000 Subject: Neville's Role (WAS: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms In-Reply-To: <001c01c3e41e$5e0f03e0$5902a8c0@Belkin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89739 >> Debbie wrote > I know my scenario doesn't jump out from the text. I came up with it after I started wondering if the prophecy was about Neville instead of (or along with) Harry after all, because I (along with Amy Z and Lizvega) find it quite odd that JKR would raise the tantalizing suggestion that the prophecy might not have been about Harry after all (as Dumbledore tells us) and then allow Dumbledore's conclusion that there's no doubt that it was Harry to stand unchallenged. One of the possibilities, which is not precluded by canon to date, is that the prophecy is about Neville and that in the final battle, Harry will be unable to defeat Voldemort and Neville will do it for him. > tlpbupu: Just to stir the pot a little, what if Harry is "the one" but how he defeats LV is by helping Neville gain confidence in himself both as a wizard and a person and Neville is actually the one who defeats LV. Using this scenerio both boys of who the prohecy spoke fulfill it. Tlpbupu From mangochee at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 07:49:48 2004 From: mangochee at yahoo.com (mangochee) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:49:48 -0000 Subject: How's Snape Doing it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89740 Honey: > > lizvega2 gave a brilliant theory proposing that Snape is spying > > on LV by means of impersonating Crouch Jr via polyjuice potion. > Carol responded to lizvega2: > The main problem I see with this interesting theory is that the > effects of the polyjuice potion only last an hour. Honey: > Carol's first argument against the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory > is pretty convincing. LV might be so thankful to have his number > one DE back that he isn't paying close attention, but he would > still probably eventually pick up on the imposter constantly > excusing himself to slug > down a booster dose of PJ. I am not sure about the Snape/Crouch/Polyjuice Theory because Snape knew exactly what DD wanted him to do at the end of GoF. It had been only a short while before that they had found out about Crouch Jr being a DE and the imposter Moody. Snape's mission was something they must have discussed when Snape realized that his Dark Mark was getting clearer...DD was reading signs of Voldemort's possible return. When Snape was asked to go on his mission by DD, DD had this "look of apprehension" on his face. What was that all about? Did he think the task was too difficult for Snape (being tortured by Voldemort), and that's why he was worried about him or was it DD's doubts about Snape (if he has any)? I have been wondering if Snape's truly back within the DE circle and Voldemort. Is he truly spying by pretending to be a DE? I just don't see how he wouldn't know about Voldemort's plan to lure Harry to the prophecy. Almost all of the DEs had to know the plan well enough for them to be present at the Ministry waiting for Harry to touch the prophecy. I mean wasn't this plan schemed after Voldemort realized that Harry could read his mind (after the attack on Mr. Weasley)...and vice versa? It took them a few months from that point to hatch up this new improved one faking Sirius' capture. Even if Snape wasn't "involved" in this "project" (not all DEs know each other's mission), Snape should've been able to pick up something of this new plan... "mangochee" From tlpbupu at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 09:24:07 2004 From: tlpbupu at hotmail.com (tlpbupu) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:24:07 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89741 spang writes: > I think the reason that the other death eaters wouldn't close in > on Snape was that he was at Hogwarts. Remember it's supposed to be > a safe place and I think it has been breached physically only once, > by the fake Moody in GoF. And also, after Voldemort's fall all his > supporters were either outside Azkaban or inside it. Those outside > worked hard to be outide and I doubt they would ever have risked > their positions to get Snape out. And those inside Azkaban were in > no position to touch Snape until relased, were they? tlpbupu writes: Hi, just wanted to add my comments, naive as they may seem. :) Regarding the graveyard scene in GoF, Snape could have easily explained his absence by being at Hogwarts. The quote below states that the DEs were to disapparate instantly and apparate at LV side. Snape, being at Hogwarts, could not have disapparated instantly because you can't inside Hogwarts. Also, if he were to leave the castle after Harry had alerted DD to LV's return then it would have looked suspicious. Later he could then go to Lucius Malfoy and explain this and hope to get information. "When he touched the Mark of any Death Eater, we were to Disapparate, and Apparate, instantly at his side." (GoF "The Parting of the Ways" p710 US edition) Just my thoughts, fire away! Tlpbupu From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 27 12:11:13 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:11:13 -0000 Subject: Re; Re: Is Snape a pureblood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89742 June wrote: << It's a class thing: He comes over to me as rather aristocratic. He certainly has the arrogance and the hauteur. I've studied the argument that certain behaviour of Snape in canon is at odds with the concept of his being upper class, ie the swearing and the spitting. Not so. Aristocrats, certainly many British ones, do not feel they have any duty to behave well. If they behave well, it is because they want to. "Noblesse Oblige" is a French remark and not a British one! They do not see themselves as bound by petit bourgeois definitions of what is "good form" and therefore will spit and swear if they feel like it. Equally, I will in the spirit of fairness point out, before someone does it for me, that he shows no such self-assurance in OOP - "Snape's Worst Memory". However, while his birth may well have been honourable, it looks to me very much as though his family background was impoverished. This may account for the dingy appearance and lack of confidence. Imagine coming from a good family and not having the wealth that you feel ought to go with it! Which would add an extra reason for his joining Voldemort's cause. Such a person would be a sitting duck for Voldemort's anti-Muggle line. >> Sigune reflects: I dunno - he doesn't particularly strike me as the aristocratic type; I am not sure if I can explain why not. But even if you are quite right to point out that aristocratic roots don't equal "good form", I feel bound to say that likewise, arrogance and hauteur do not preclude aristocracy. Somehow, I have come to think of Snape as a 'self-made man', which one could argue is a quintessentially middle-class concept. He is ambitious and hard-working. Also, judging from what we saw in the Occlumency lessons, he seems to have sort of reinvented himself at one point inbetween his schooldays and the arrival of Harry at Hogwarts. - As you point out, he has gained confidence. [*Question*: is there any canon evidence of his using swearwords other than in the scenes from his memory?] I don't know how this sounds to other people, but it seems to me that Snape's arrogance is connected with the quality of his thinking as Hermione signalled in PS: unlike many wizards, Snape thinks logically. His arrogance stems from his impatience with people who make errors of logic because they don't think rationally enough (to his taste). It also struck me that Sirius called Snape 'Lucius Malfoy's lapdog'. Even when he meant it as a provocation, I get the impression throughout the books that Lucius Malfoy thinks of Snape as an ally or supporter, but in a patronising sort of way - Malfoy is the one with the power to make things happen and by no means regards Snape as an equal, which I think he would be more likely to do if Snape were on an equal footing with him socially. I entirely agree with your view of him as someone who tries hard to better himself in the sense that he wants to make up for an impoverished family background. His pride and confidence at present may be related to a sense of achievement of sorts then. But I am not sure that this precludes an aristocratic family. Yet again, I have no definite proof, and this may be a piece of "Snape-as-I-would-like-him- to-turn-out-to-be" :). Yours severely, Sigune From tigerfan41 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 12:36:48 2004 From: tigerfan41 at yahoo.com (Darrell Harris) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:36:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 4188 In-Reply-To: <1075175784.15458.84805.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040127123648.89968.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89743 The narrator is just a voice, not a character. Usually but not always he or she sees from Harry's point of view, but sometimes it's as if the narrator is an invisible presence witnessing and reporting events from the outside. We're treated at one point to Vernon Dursley's thought (though not really his perspective) and at another to Frank Bryce's. I very much doubt that Dumbledore will ever be the POV character, simply because he needs to remain mysterious. Who else would know that Snape never found out who set him on fire? JKR. Carol I think it's easier to compare this to a biographer's prospective. After interviewing those involved taking copious notes one reconstructs the story then retells it from the knowledge gained. When possible one uses 1st person perspective for direct quotes and input. Where one couldn't rebuild the 1st person knowledge the information is presented using the available data that was gleaned from those who were there. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Jan 27 13:18:46 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:18:46 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89744 I've just bought "New clues to Harry Potter: Book 5, by Galadriel Waters. I confess that I haven't yet really tried to read it all or understand it, but my eyes were immediately drawn to what IMO is a mistake, or at least an assumption dressed up as a fact. Whenever I have read OoP, I have always assumed that the DADA is made up of two parts, the written exam and the practical exam. However, Galadriel Waters states that the "Written exam for a class is worth one OWL;and the pratical exam is worth one OWL; so, each subject is worth two OWLS" p. 109. Now, it is possible that this is how they're calculated, but it seems unlikely. When Harry has his careers advise with Professor McGonagall, McGongagall makes no reference to any difference between written and practical, she talks only of the grades that would be required for Charms, Transfiguration etc. There is no reference to the different exams being awarded different O.W.Ls. I agree that my evidence isn't conclusive, but given that Muggle exams are made up of written and practical exams - where appropriate - I'm not entirely sure why the Wizard exams are going to follow a different route. I am still unsure how Barty Crouch Junior could have got 12 O.W.L.s, and a possible explanation is awarding 2 grades per subject. But, then 12 O.W.L.s would not be such a terrific achievement: Possible subjects: Divination DADA x 2 Charms x 2 Transfiguration x 2 CoMC x 2 History of Magic Muggle Studies Runes Arithmancy Astrononomy x 2 Potions x 2 Herbology (Apologies if I've forgotten any) The subjects I've multiplied are the subjects which seem to have 2 separate parts. That would mean Harry could theoretically achieve 15 O.W.L.s, 3 more than both Bill and Barty Crouch Junior. Unfortunately, the alternative isn't very satisfactory either. How could Crouch have achieved 12 O.W.Ls if there were only 12 subjects, and Hermione was only able to take them with the aid of a time turner? Unless, the time turner had been given to previous exceptional students? One final alternative is that certain exceptional students get to take extra papers in say Potions, so that they're awarded 2 O.W.Ls. This used to happen with Maths O'levels in the UK - but the standard Maths paper was taken in the previous year. Certain there is no evidence to suggest that this system was in use. I have another quibble with Galadriel Waters and O.W.Ls, but really this is just over cultural interpretation so I'm just being fussy: "You can pass with an "Acceptable" or you can pass with honors "Outstanding". Whilst I guess this must be an attempt to translate the marks into a different exam system, it neatly misses out "Exceeds expectations" (to be fair, this is mentioned earlier, but no attempt is made to translate what it means). I'm not sure you can equate these marks into pass and honours, unless you also find a direct equivalent for Exceeds expectations. I haven't read the rest of the book yet, but am hopeful that there won't be any other "facts" that seem open to question. Ali (Who's decided that Snape will lose his head - hence Severed Nape). From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Jan 27 14:58:15 2004 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:58:15 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89745 Ali wrote: > "Written exam for a class is worth one OWL;and the pratical exam is > worth one OWL; so, each subject is worth two OWLS" p. 109. > > Now, it is possible that this is how they're calculated, but it > seems unlikely. I agree with you; I certainly never got the idea that the practical and written parts were graded separately, and I'm sure I'd have remembered it if it were ever mentioned explicitely. > Unfortunately, the alternative isn't very satisfactory either. How > could Crouch have achieved 12 O.W.Ls if there were only 12 > subjects, > and Hermione was only able to take them with the aid of a time > turner? Unless, the time turner had been given to previous > exceptional students? One final alternative is that certain > exceptional students get to take extra papers in say Potions, so > that they're awarded 2 O.W.Ls. Hermione was only able to take 12 subjects _during the same year_ with the help of a time turner. I think this is indeed a very rare thing for a student to do. However, it isn't written in stone that a student has to keep the same electives from the third year on. Nor it is stated that it is a requirement to be enrolled in a class in order to take a particular exam. I think that with a little independent study, certain students could prepare themselves for exams in several subjects, even if they haven't actually studied that subject in school every (or any) year. > "You can pass with an "Acceptable" or you can pass with > honors "Outstanding". > > Whilst I guess this must be an attempt to translate the marks into a > different exam system, it neatly misses out "Exceeds expectations" > (to be fair, this is mentioned earlier, but no attempt is made to > translate what it means). I'm not sure you can equate these marks > into pass and honours, unless you also find a direct equivalent for > Exceeds expectations. Well, American schools often use both honors and distinguished honors. But I see no reason to come up with designations such as these for the O.W.L.s. -Corinth From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 15:52:49 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:52:49 -0000 Subject: Longbottoms' memory charm (was Re: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89746 Hi, I'm replying here both to Jen and to Debby. Jen: This is a very compelling theory! Naama: Thank you!! Jen: I'm wondering about Neville, though. He would still be a baby at the time of his parent's attack and unable to really understand any complex secrets. From the scene in GOF where Neville turns white watching Fake!Moody and the spiders, I'm wondering if the memory charm wasn't put on him AFTER the torture, which he witnessed. Even a baby would sense the tension of hearing his mother and father screaming. We already know Harry is capable of recalling the scene of his parent's murder, albeit with the help of Dementors, at around the same age. Naama: I'm very bad at timeline calculations, but wasn't it said that the Longbottoms incident happened some time *after* Voldemort's downfall? If it was one or two years after, Neville would have been around three years of age ? he could have absorbed, without maybe understanding, some piece of information (a name, for instance). In fact, my theory has an additional extension to it: that his parents, knowing that DEs were after them, told Neville the secret (maybe even making him a Secret Keeper in some way). Then they sent him away, with a memory charm for protection. What I like about this, is that it opens the possiblity that the information Neville carries, unbeknowest, will be the missing piece to Voldemort's final downfall. As I pointed out a long time ago, if Neville was with his parents, the DEs wouldn't have hesitated to torture him, or threaten him with death, in order to make his parents reveal the secret. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So, if Neville wasn't a witness, then of course there was no need to memory charm him *after* the event. If we accept that Neville shows symptoms of having been memeory charmed (being forgetful and so on), then it must have happened prior to the event, very probably by his parents. Debby also favors my theory (Yay!): I have to say that I really like this idea. Even though I'm partial to scenarios that involve nefarious deeds, especially by the Ministry, the possibility that they charmed themselves can't be discounted. I do think, however, that the Longbottoms had more information than simply the location of Voldemort that they needed to hide. Naama: I agree. Frank may have been one of the Aurors specifically assigned to hunt down Voldemort. It makes sense that there were such Aurors, since we know that some people (Dumbledore, for instance) never believed that Voldemort was completely vanquished. So, if that was Frank's mission, he might have had time to delve into Voldemort's history, particularly the "magical transformations" that turned him from human into what he is now. Possibly Frank had in his hands a piece of information that could bring Voldemort down, a weak spot of some sort. If so, it would explain why he would go to such lengths to protect that knowledge. Naama From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jan 27 15:54:34 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:54:34 +0000 Subject: Comparisons Message-ID: <1A1B2349-50E1-11D8-B162-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89747 Browsing through past posts there are a number that compare characters in the Potterverse with other individuals either fictional, or less often, real. This can be an illuminating experience; parallels emerge, aims and ideals seem to become congruent and insights can be glimpsed which may be relevant to the books we spend so much time discussing. A few months ago, BBC TV ran a highly rated and popular series called 'Great Britons', an attempt to identify, by public vote the most important and influential Briton in history. The public sent in nominations and the top 100 were reviewed and put to the vote to determine the top 10. These were then examined in detail and another vote held to find a winner. In the top 10 were the likes of Shakespeare, Newton, Brunel, Elizabeth 1, Churchill; names that resonate through English and indeed world history. Included in that ten was a surprise candidate - Cromwell, regicide and dictator (in all but name). Now who do you think he might be compared to? For those who are not familiar with him (or rely on Hollywood or TV for their history), he was a man from an ordinary farming-stock background, was one of a group that challenged the over-mighty power of the unelected ruling classes, formed the first truly professional army, defeated the forces of reaction, dissolved a corrupt and self-serving parliament (even though it had backed him) and tried and executed the king when it became obvious that he was reneging on the revised constitutional settlement. He also received a *very* bad press both at the time and later. He was by no means perfect but more lies have been told about him than almost anyone else in British history. Let us, as they say, compare and contrast. We can only go part-way because the full tale is yet to be told, but parallels between him and Tom Riddle in the Potterverse seem obvious. Humble beginnings, challenging an un-elected establishment, forming an army, seemingly backed by a corrupt Ministry - that's the easy bit. Could apply to any number of historical figures, so let's look a bit closer to get a real feel for the man. He first comes to our attention as the person who shops Hagrid and is ultimately responsible for his expulsion and loss of his wand. Many seem to think that this was unjust, but was it? Hagrid was rearing an Acromantula in his dormitory; a creature specified as Class A Non-Tradeable Goods, attracting *severe penalties* (my emphasis) for their trade or importation. It seems to me that Tom was performing a public service. True, the unfortunate demise of Myrtle must be seen as a grave error, but an objective examination of the event does make it less cut and dried. Tom did not breed or nurture the Basilisk, that is down to S. Slytherin. It was a fait accompli that had been lying in wait for anyone that accessed the Chamber of Secrets for the past thousand years. To argue that it is all Tom's fault is to believe that he knew in advance what the Chamber contained and had the ability to fully control it from the first moment of contact. Is there any evidence to support that contention? Godrics Hollow has been the subject of much discussion, but do we really know what happened? I don't think we do. A Tom much changed by his travels and experiences calls on the Potters. Then what? James dies, Lily dies (although we know that Tom did not attack Lily on sight, but asked her to move, for what reason hasn't been revealed) and Harry gets a scar. But what actually happened? We *don't* know. We have to take the word of Dumbledore who wasn't even there and who has produced no witnesses. So where did his tale come from? It all seems a bit fishy to me. Later events are also open to reinterpretation; Quirrell died through the actions of Harry, Tom certainly didn't kill him; Diary!Tom is not the real thing but a magical construct from Malfoy's hands - the real Tom was convalescing in Albania; Graveyard!Tom (GoF) is a quite natural attempt to eliminate an enemy sworn to destroy him. Same with DD at the Ministry. Deaths have been inflicted by both sides, and as is to be expected are subject to political and emotional spin by the parties in conflict. So much of what we read seems to emanate from Dumbledore or his minions. Could it be significant that DD is a very influential personality in the existing regime? A regime that exists because of a corrupt Ministry keen to deny equality to those it disapproves of. DD spouts words (oh, doesn't he just!) but you'll notice that he never actually does anything to bring justice to the oppressed. It's all very reminiscent of England in the 1640s. The one trying to bring about change is characterised as an evil monster, those opposed are determined to maintain their privileged positions come what may. They fear that other marginalised groups (Giants, Goblins) may also seek a re-ordering of society. War is imminent. To push the comparison a little further characters could be presented thus: Tom - Cromwell (the lower order getting even) DD - King Charles (devious and untrustworthy) Harry - Prince Rupert (charming but ruthless) Fudge - Denzil Hollies (parliamentary leader keen to stay at the top) Fun, isn't it? Kneasy From CoyotesChild at charter.net Tue Jan 27 15:56:20 2004 From: CoyotesChild at charter.net (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:56:20 -0600 Subject: Right and Wrong (was - RE: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape) In-Reply-To: <8b.204dad9.2d47318f@aol.com> Message-ID: <000401c3e4ee$1b652a30$18667144@Einstein> No: HPFGUIDX 89748 > Kathy: > > Joy, you stated "Would D'Dore have gone to those lengths to get > > a spy in the deatheaters? > > I found a passage in OoP on pg. 839 that suggests that he would > > and has gone to many extreme lengths when it comes to Harry. DD > > says "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people > > and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the > > here and now you were alive...". To what extent might he have > > gone if he put Harry's safety above all else? > > Joy: > > Wow Kathy, thanks for sharing that. You know I'm beginning to wonder > if DD is really a good guy or not sometimes, lol. Seriously though I > didn't recall that quote, thanks for bringing it to my attention. It > does make one wonder what lengths DD might go to sometimes in achieving > his goals.... > Iggy here: I think the underlying thing that often seems to be overlooked here is that there is no pure right or wrong in these books (or even in life), there is only a set of goals each person has, and what they are willing to do to achieve them. Voldemort uses dark magics, has a team of people who work for him and are expected to have the same basic methods and ideals. He has been willing to manipulate, lie, and sacrifice people to achieve his goals. He seeks a world order that conforms to his ideals and will do whatever he feels is reasonable to make sure that order comes to pass. He has defied the law, he has evaded authorities, and he has gone into hiding, leaving his followers to carry out his plans for him. He has used spies, deception, misdirection, double agents, and disguised individuals to gather information, keep an eye on people, and plant information (correct or incorrect.) All other concerns pale before his own vision. When you get down to it, and ultimately by his own admission, the only true difference in Dumbledore is that he doesn't use Dark Arts (that we know of) to achieve his goals. All of the things that I have listed Voldemort doing, aside from using dark magics, are things that Dumbledore has done, as has been witnessed and/or confessed to in the books. So, when you get to it, there are only two distinctions in who we see as good or evil: Do we agree with their goals, views, and methods? And are they willing to use what are classically considered Dark Magics to achieve their goals? I'm sure if the books were written from Draco's perspective, we would be more sympathetic to him, side with Voldemort, and think Lucius has the right ideas. It's because the books would be written from a different background and a different perceived set of right and wrong. (It's called "PR", people... *grin* And each side always seeks to present itself in the best light. After all... History is always taught by the victors.) It might be interesting to re-read the books and think of how the Dursley's see things in the parts where Harry is with them, and how Draco would see things while Harry is at school. (Harry and Draco both break rules, snipe at each other, try to get one another into trouble when the opportunity presents itself, laugh at the other's expense in unfortunate situations, have deceived to achieve their goals, and ultimately try to undermine the other's cause and goals in life.) Just my few centaurs worth. Iggy McSnurd From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 16:20:09 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:20:09 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89749 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > And there is still the fact that Dumbledore isn't > really sympathetic towards practitioners of the Dark Arts, whereas > Snape is passionate about them. > Siriusly Snapey Susan now: Sigune, the point I'm addressing isn't your main point, but I still think it's worth asking about. Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate about the dark arts? Isn't one of the things we readers are often cautioned about concerning JKR is that we should question statements of "fact" made by CHARACTERS? I know Percy first told Harry that Snape wants the DADA post, and other students have said it, too, saying something like "everyone knows" that he fancies the position. But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he truly wants the position? I am just wondering whether "passionate about" the dark arts might be going a little too far, for what we know of Severus. Please fire away if I'm way off and there is concrete evidence in canon! Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 16:49:46 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:46 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Hitomi: > > > JKR in responding to a reader asking her which character she > > missed most when done writing (at Royal Alber Hall interview with > > Stephen Fry): "I really miss all of them, but I suppose I'm going > > to have to say Harry, because he is my hero and there is a lot of > > me in Harry." > > >> > > > > Frost: > > That just means that she loves him, warts and all. And being a > > hero... heh. I think she's a woman who has enough insight to see > > beyond the "muscle" and see what is truly heroic about a person. > > That doesn't require them to be perfect. I mean, really who would > > you rather read about? Superman or Batman. I'd pick Batman any > > day. Batman is my hero, and he's the dark grumpy guy without any > > superpowers, (beyond his Bottomless bat-wallet.) Hero's don't have > > to be perfect. They just have to show something that we admire and > > strive for. > > > Carol: > I think Hitomi may be misreading JKR's use of the phrase "my hero." > She doesn't mean that he's her personal hero as Popeye is Olive > Oyl's--"my hero!" (swoon)--in the old cartoons. (Sorry I can't think > of a better example). She simply means that he's her protagonist, the > hero of the book she's writing, not her personal hero. > > Carol, who apologizes for the bad example. No ridicule intended. Siriusly Snapey Susan now: Carol, I don't like to nitpick...but I suppose I am. That's an awfully strong statement: "She [JKR] doesn't mean that he's her personal hero.... She simply means that he's her protagonist...." How do you KNOW this? You've stated it as fact, not opinion, but how do you know? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 16:28:03 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:28:03 -0000 Subject: Neville's Role (WAS: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals and memory charms In-Reply-To: <001c01c3e41e$5e0f03e0$5902a8c0@Belkin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > Actually, I was thinking of Lily's death, which he [Harry] didn't actually see but whose horror he experienced when the Dementors brought out that memory. Siriusly Snapey Susan: Debbie, a question for clarification, if I might. What do you mean when you write that Harry didn't SEE his mother's death? Harry was 15 months old, and at that age he definitely could have seen the whole thing. His memory might not be able to hang on to much of the experience, but I believe he saw it alright. Or are you saying that Lily blocked his vision? [If that's the case, I'd still argue that he *saw* what happened.] Or am I misunderstanding altogether? Siriusly Snapey Susan From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jan 27 16:50:54 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:50:54 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89752 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > > Siriusly Snapey Susan now: >[SNIPPAGE...} > I know Percy first told Harry that > Snape wants the DADA post, and other students have said it, too, > saying something like "everyone knows" that he fancies the position. > > But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he truly > wants the position? I am just wondering whether "passionate about" > the dark arts might be going a little too far, for what we know of > Severus. > > Please fire away if I'm way off and there is concrete evidence in > canon! He confirms to Umbridge in OOP that he has indeed applied for and been turned down for the DADA position. And refers her to Dumbledore for the reasons for his rejection (in a way that does not allow any great discussion). He certainly doesn't sound ecstatic about his rejection at that point - but then he wouldn't would he? That doesn't really answer your question! He may or may not be "passionate about the Dark Arts" and this doesn't really prove it. My own feeling is that the repeated applications for and turning down for the post may be a complicated piece of PR worked out between him and Dumbledore. It goes with his surface persona to be mad about the Dark Arts and does no harm to his standing in the camp with the guys with the black hats if he is seen to be a disgruntled ex-Death Eater with a grudge about rejection. Just one more way of adding to his cover story with Voldemort. June From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 27 16:49:31 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > wrote: > > > Lupin's vampire essay has been cited as evidence that Snape is avampire, but the essay shows has nothing to do with Snape. It has already been assigned before Snape tries to stop Harry from sneakinginto Hogsmeade. > > > > "K" > > Yes, but it was assigned after the werewolf incident. > > > Carol: > Not immediately afterwards. More than three months afterwards. Please see the dates I provided from the calendar in the Lexicon. Snape'sessay is assigned on November 5, Lupin's in the week precedingFebruary 12. Lupin's can't be a response to Snape's. There are weeks and weeks of unidentified creatures in between.<< I don't follow this. Snape must doubt that anyone will identify Lupin from the syllabus alone--it never happened in all the years they were students. So mostly he is messing with Lupin's head when he assigns the essay. Lupin, according to the theory, decides to mess with Snape in return. But he can't cancel the werewolf essay and immediately assign the vampire essay without drawing attention to himself, not to mention outraging his students. They're expecting to study hinkypunks, right? So he waits, and assigns the vampire essay at a more convenient time, then makes sure that Snape knows all about it. Pippin From rredordead at aol.com Tue Jan 27 16:15:35 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:15:35 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89754 > Sawsan here: > I don't think that Lily could have created that scar because when > Harry went to Ollivander's, Ollivander states that it is curious that > Harry's wand could choose him, when its brother gave him that scar. Anyhow, I don't think that Lily could > have given Harry that scar, the possibility that both Lily and Voldi > did just out of the result of both spells being cast on Harry, but I > think Voldi is the actual one who scarred Harry. After all the > prophecy states: he will mark him as his equal. Mandy here: Yes Ollivander does say the "...when it's brother gave you that scar.", but that's because it's what everyone in the WW believes. With an absence of witnesses to the events in Godric's Hollow no one is able to disagree. But it doesn't necessarily mean it actually happened. DD also told Harry Voldemort gave him his scar but I'm trusting DD less and less in each book. Yes, the prophecy states that Voldemort will "mark him as his equal" but there has been a lot of debate on this site as to exactly what 'mark' means. A physical mark or psychological mark? Not to mention the whole debate on the idea that another could the 'One'. By they way, I personally believe it is Harry who is one to vanquish Lord Voldemort not Neville. Cheers Mandy From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 27 17:29:00 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:29:00 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89755 > "severelysigune" wrote: > > > And there is still the fact that Dumbledore isn't > > really sympathetic towards practitioners of the Dark Arts, whereas > > Snape is passionate about them. > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan now: > > Sigune, the point I'm addressing isn't your main point, but I still > think it's worth asking about. Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate > about the dark arts? Isn't one of the things we readers are often > cautioned about concerning JKR is that we should question statements > of "fact" made by CHARACTERS? I know Percy first told Harry that > Snape wants the DADA post, and other students have said it, too, > saying something like "everyone knows" that he fancies the position. > > But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he truly > wants the position? I am just wondering whether "passionate about" > the dark arts might be going a little too far, for what we know of > Severus. > > Please fire away if I'm way off and there is concrete evidence in > canon! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Sigune again: Erm - yes, it's true, we hear that from Percy... I would like to clarify one thing first: if I called Snape 'passionate about the Dark Arts' I wasn't referring to the DADA position but to a general interest, so I would like to split up my arguments. 1. Interest in the Dark Arts as a branch of magic: We know - though, well, again not from Snape himself - that Snape was already into Dark Arts when at Hogwarts; that would be Sirius (or Remus? I haven't got my book here) saying so in OoP [somewhere after the Pensieve bit, where Harry wants explanations for James's bullying]. They explain James's antipathy towards 'Snivellus' by pointing out that Potter hated the Dark Arts whereas Snape studied them. 2. DADA: June has made a good post on that one. She argues that the whole issue of Snape not getting the DADA position and applying for it year after year looks like something orchestrated to keep people in the dark as to Snape's true loyalties, and she remarks that the Dark Arts business fits in with his surface persona. That sounds very good to me and may very well be true. But it does not explain the fact that Snape already had the Dark Arts 'slur' sticking to him at school. I don't know if this sounds at all convincing; I am aware of the fact that /again/ we hear that stuff from people who are biased. Personally I like the idea of a Dark Sorcerer who isn't quite as bad as he looks at first sight; I can imagine someone taking an intellectual interest in the Dark Arts without necessarily growing into a Voldemort. I mean, they /are/ fascinating after all. Also I must agree with the person [sorry sorry, forgot who it was] who posted on another thread that they can't believe Dumbledore would trust Snape if he had killed Muggle(born)s under LV's command - though I don't know how he could have avoided it and stay alive... But then I suppose he would be cleverer than my humble self :). Yours severely, Sigune - who hopes Severus Snape will replace Phineas Nigellus as the most unpopular Hogwarts Headmaster in history :). From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 17:43:55 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:43:55 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > > SIGUNE: > > > And there is still the fact that Dumbledore isn't > > > really sympathetic towards practitioners of the Dark Arts, > > > whereas Snape is passionate about them. > > > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate about the dark arts? Isn't > > one of the things we readers are often cautioned about concerning > > JKR is that we should question statements > > of "fact" made by CHARACTERS? > > But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he > > truly wants the position? > > SIGUNE again: > I would like to clarify one thing first: if I called > Snape 'passionate about the Dark Arts' I wasn't referring to the > DADA position but to a general interest, so I would like to split > up my arguments. > > 1. Interest in the Dark Arts as a branch of magic: > We know - though, well, again not from Snape himself - that Snape > was already into Dark Arts when at Hogwarts They explain > James's antipathy towards 'Snivellus' by pointing out that Potter > hated the Dark Arts whereas Snape studied them. > > 2. DADA: > June has made a good post on that one. She argues that the whole > issue of Snape not getting the DADA position and applying for it > year after year looks like something orchestrated to keep people in > the dark as to Snape's true loyalties, and she remarks that the > Dark Arts business fits in with his surface persona. > That sounds very good to me and may very well be true. But it does > not explain the fact that Snape already had the Dark Arts 'slur' > sticking to him at school. > > I don't know if this sounds at all convincing; I am aware of the > fact that /again/ we hear that stuff from people who are biased. > > Personally I like the idea of a Dark Sorcerer who isn't quite as > bad as he looks at first sight; I can imagine someone taking an > intellectual interest in the Dark Arts without necessarily growing > into a Voldemort. Siriusly Snapey Susan: Point well taken that we have some add'l. evidence that Snape was renowned for an interest in the dark arts while still a student. Yes, I agree that June has put forth an idea that I like very much-- that Snape & DD have orchestrated this "apply for the DADA job & be denied" thing to perpetuate the impression that Snape could be a nasty guy. :-) There's no more evidence for that than there is that Snape is PO'ed that he keeps getting bypassed...which I guess was my point: we can't be positive whenever we're basing a position on what a character says is true about another character. As for this-- > Sigune- who hopes Severus Snape will replace Phineas Nigellus as > the most unpopular Hogwarts Headmaster in history :) --well, that's interesting! I honestly never even contemplated Snape as headmaster, probably because I'm afraid he's toast before the series is through. Siriusly Snapey Susan From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 19:58:29 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:58:29 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89758 Sue here. As I was reading GOF for the umpteenth time it occured to me that most people (like me) assume that the two missing DE's Voldemort mentions are Snape and Karkarof, but what if they are not? I don't have the books in front of me, but I know there was at least one reference to the fact that none of the DE's knew who all of the others were, and there must have been more than the few that apparated into the grave yard. I know that Snape's mark burned and that he was to apparate immediately to the spot where Voldemort called him, but it seems possible that there were other groups meeting in other places to get instructions. That would mean, of course, that Snape was not necessarily in Voldemort's "inner circle". Since Serius refered to him as "Malfoy's lap dog" and he said himself it was his job to find out what other DE's were doing, not Voldemort, it seems possible to me that his working for both sides could be in a different context. Since he would only see Voldemort occassionally his need to hide his thoughts would be tested less often. Perhaps he needs only to fool Malfoy and other DE's. This would make working as a spy a bit less complicated and the information he would need to share about DD less sensitive. Snape could simply say the DD trusts him enough to give him a job but gives him no other information. If in fact the missing DE's are not Snape and Karkarof who could they be? Just thinking out loud. Sue From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 27 21:12:02 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:02 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > > Yes, I agree that June has put forth an idea that I like very much-- > > that Snape & DD have orchestrated this "apply for the DADA job & be > > denied" thing to perpetuate the impression that Snape could be a > > nasty guy. :-) There's no more evidence for that than there is > that > > Snape is PO'ed that he keeps getting bypassed...which I guess was > my > > point: we can't be positive whenever we're basing a position on > what > > a character says is true about another character. > NORA: > That's an interesting idea, and I think there's something to > support it--but for the interview comments made. > > (Ah, here it is): quoting (from the Royal Albert Hall webcast): > > *When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape > said "I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please" > and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so > said "I think we'll get you to teach Potions and see how you get > along there".* > > That does punch something of a hole in the theory...he may keep > applying year after year as something of a cover, maybe something > of a game, but it's clear from that that at least at one point, he > did want that job. Siriusly Snapey Susan: Thank you for that reminder, Nora. Even though I've read that interview in its entirety at least 3 times, I still forget things I've read there! As a *small* bit in my own defense, though, I would include the line JKR said just before where you started to quote: "That is an excellent question and the reason is I have to be careful not to say too much." That's probably not enough to dig my way out of this one, but.... :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From rredordead at aol.com Tue Jan 27 15:59:05 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:59:05 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89760 Kohararpo wrote: > That's an interesting theory, and I'd say it's possible. I think some > other force had to be present to prevent little Harry from being > killed by that curse. What are the odds that it would backfire then? > Because of the emphasis on Lily's protection, especially in book 5, I'd say that makes a lot of sense. > But on the other hand, if Lily put the scar there, how could it be a > link to Voldemort? Maybe the appearance of the scar was a combination > of Lily's protection charm and Voldemort's attempted curse? Mandy here: The scar was created by the events at Godric's Hollow, events that included Voldemort's AK and Lily's protection. I attempted to explain this better in post 89696 if you are interested. Cheers Mandy From belijako at online.no Tue Jan 27 21:08:13 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:08:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89761 Pippin wrote: I don't follow this. Snape must doubt that anyone will identify Lupin from the syllabus alone--it never happened in all the years they were students. So mostly he is messing with Lupin's head when he assigns the essay. Berit replies: Well, maybe not according to canon: Quote: "'[Hermione shouting] He's a werewolf!' ...[Lupin] turned to Hermione and said, 'How long have you known?' 'Ages,' Hermione whispered. 'Since I did Professor Snape's essay...' 'He'll be delighted,' said Lupin coolly. 'He set that essay hoping someone would realise what my symptoms meant. Did you check the lunar chart and realise that I was always ill at the full moon? Or did you realise that the boggart changed into the moon when it saw me? 'Both.' Hermione said quietly. Lupin forced a laugh. 'You're the cleverest witch of your age I've ever met, Hermione.'" (PoA p. 253 UK Ed.). Now, more students might have come to realise what Lupin were, too, but they never did that easay because when Lupin was back in class he told them they didn't have to do it. Hermione was the only one who had already done it... In other words: Snape could count on Hermione finding out. What Snape didn't foresee, was that the student who found out, kept it to herself out of loyalty... :-)) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 21:25:47 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:25:47 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89762 <<>> The Sergeant Majorette says That's exactly why I thought Molly would be the one to die in Book V. Sirius didn't really seem important enough for all the hype. And really, his death scene wasn't all that traumatic, compared to, say, Cedric's; not to mention the fact that the Blacks, being purebloods, probably aren't *right*. Sirius' behaviour is Psych 101 bipolar: if he had lived, his symptoms would have gotten out of control. I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact and the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. Not looking forward to it, at all, and I sure wouldn't mind being wrong. --JDR From rredordead at aol.com Tue Jan 27 22:05:15 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:05:15 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89763 >--JDR >I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact >and the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. Mandy here: Could JKR kill and/or maim another mother in the series? It would be awful. After all we already have: Harry's mum murdered Neville's tortured Tom Riddle's dead in childbirth agony Sirius' mother dead and her memory portrait seriously deranged. I don't think I could take any more. Molly is the only representation of a 'mum' loving, nurturing and alive that we and Harry have. For her to die it would be devastating. However it might be the big kick in the arse that Ron needs to step up to the plate. Mandy, hoping Molly will survive to see her kids into old age. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 27 22:04:52 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:04:52 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <1A1B2349-50E1-11D8-B162-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: Kneasy: > It seems to me that Tom was performing a > public service. True, the unfortunate demise of Myrtle must be seen as > a grave error, but an objective examination of the event does make it > less cut and dried. Tom did not breed or nurture the Basilisk, that is > down to S. Slytherin. It was a fait accompli that had been lying in > wait for anyone that accessed the Chamber of Secrets for the past > thousand years. To argue that it is all Tom's fault is to believe that > he knew in advance what the Chamber contained and had the ability to > fully control it from the first moment of contact. Is there any > evidence to support that contention? Geoff: Yes, but /why/ did he want to get into the Chamber of Secrets? "'I thought someone must realise that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the heir of Slytherin. It had taken /me/ five whole years to find out everything I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the secret entrance....'" (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition) So he'd been digging around since his First Year ot thereabouts. Sounds a very dedicated investigator... Back to my question above.... Kneasy: > Godrics Hollow has been the subject of much discussion, but do we > really know what happened? I don't think we do. A Tom much changed by > his travels and experiences calls on the Potters. Then what? James > dies, Lily dies (although we know that Tom did not attack Lily on > sight, but asked her to move, for what reason hasn't been revealed) and > Harry gets a scar. But what actually happened? We *don't* know. We have > to take the word of Dumbledore who wasn't even there and who has > produced no witnesses. So where did his tale come from? It all seems a > bit fishy to me. Geoff: Yes we do. We hear it from Voldemort himself. "'You know of course that they have called this boy my downfall?' Voldemort said softly, his red eyes on Harry, whose scar began to burn so fiercely that he almost screamed in agony.'You all know that on the night I lost my powers and my body, I tried to kill him. His mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen... I could not touch the boy.' Voldemort raised one of his long white fingers and put it very close to Harry's cheek. 'His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice... this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it... but no matter, I can touch him now.' Harry felt the cold tip of the long white finger touch him and thought his head would burst with the pain. Voldemort laughed softly in his ear, then took the finger away and continued addressing the Death Eaters. 'I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice and it rebounded on me. aaah... pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still, I was alive.'" (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.566 UK edition) There you go; straight from the horse's mouth. Kneasy: > Later events are also open to reinterpretation; Quirrell died through > the actions of Harry, Geoff: Ah, let's go back to the horse's mouth... "'A wizard - young, foolish and gullible - wandered across my path in the forest I had made my home. Oh, he seemed the very chance I had been dreaming of... for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school.... he was easy to bend to my will... he brought me back to this country and after a while, I took possession of his body, to supervise him closely as he carried out my orders. but my plan failed. I did not manage to steal the Philosopher's Stone. I was not to be assured immortal life. I was thwarted... thwarted, once again, by Harry Potter.'........ 'The servant died when I left his body and I was left as weak as I had ever been...'" (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.567 UK edition) Hmm. Self-confessed by the big V himself methinks. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 27 19:37:32 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:37:32 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stockwell Orphanage References: <1075160757.16122.96377.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000f01c3e50d$0af0e1c0$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 89765 Geoff wrote: >In rural areas perhaps. But there are many very sizeable Baptist >churches which were established in urban areas dating back a long >way. And we are talking of the mid-20th century. Agreed very much. But the impression that I get from the books is that Hangleton _is_ a rural village rather than an urban area (there's the implication that there's just one pub, the police station is down the road in Great Hangleton, etc). A lot of traditional social attitudes persisted in the most rural areas, probably down to the late 60s or 70s, and the Welsh borders were at that time particularly isolated in that respect. So while it's not impossible that the Riddles were Baptists (they could, after all, have been urban rich who bought the local estate for prestige reasons), if they were "old" gentry then it's less likely Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 21:55:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:55:53 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sawsan_issa" wrote: > Carol wrote: > His Muggle parents, distant relations of Petunia (who never mentions > them or any other members of her family because of Lily). > > Sawsan here: > Is that your hypothesis, or is that something in canon? if so I would > really like to read about it if you can give me the references. > > Mark Evans, I think, will have some relevance in the next two books. > It is interesting how she brought him up as well as finally > introducing Petunia and Lily's maiden name. But the thing that gets me > is that Dumbledore clearly stated that Petunia was Harry's last living > relative on his mother's side.(don't remember the exact quote in OotP) > I wonder how Mark will play into all of this with this with that fact > hanging over our heads. > > Sawsan It's my hypothesis, as I foolishly assumed that people would realize after reading my other posts on the subject. Make that my prediction, because as I said elsewhere, I'm virtually certain (99%) that he'll show up as a Muggle-born first-year in Book 6). But it's pretty clear that his parents are Muggles as he lives in a Muggle neighborhood and the MoM is unaware of any wizards or witches living in the neighborhood. (They wouldn't know about Mark yet, as he's too young, and they're not exactly up on things--unaware that a Squib lived in the neighborhood.) And since his name is Evans, it's more than reasonably likely that he's related to Lily (and therefore to Harry) in some way--I think a second or third cousin as if he were closer, Dumbledore would have known of his existence, or at least that of his father. (There's no evidence that Lily and Petunia have or had a brother, who would have to have been alive at the time of Harry's birth if he later fathered Mark) and it's pretty clear from the references to Petunia as Harry's only living relative that the grandparents on both sides are dead. But, as I said, there are reasons why a more distant relationship might go unnoticed, even by Dumbledore. We've discussed all this in detail before, and I'm really just repeating arguments I've already made. I do want to add a new element to my prediction here: I'm pretty sure, based on little Mark's having "cheeked" Dudley (OoP 13, Am. ed.) that he'll be sorted into Gryffindor. (Aside to the person who asked what "cheeked" means: It means being "cheeky"--presumably calling Dudley names in response to some sort of provocation.) Carol (just call me Sybil if I'm wrong on this one) ;-) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 22:44:20 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:44:20 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ali" wrote: > I've just bought "New clues to Harry Potter: Book 5, by Galadriel > Waters. I confess that I haven't yet really tried to read it all or > understand it, but my eyes were immediately drawn to what IMO is a > mistake, or at least an assumption dressed up as a fact. > > Whenever I have read OoP, I have always assumed that the DADA is > made up of two parts, the written exam and the practical exam. > However, Galadriel Waters states that the > > "Written exam for a class is worth one OWL;and the pratical exam is > worth one OWL; so, each subject is worth two OWLS" p. 109. > > Now, it is possible that this is how they're calculated, but it > seems unlikely. snipping > > Possible subjects: > > Divination > DADA x 2 > Charms x 2 > Transfiguration x 2 > CoMC x 2 > History of Magic > Muggle Studies > Runes > Arithmancy > Astrononomy x 2 > Potions x 2 > Herbology > > (Apologies if I've forgotten any) > > The subjects I've multiplied are the subjects which seem to have 2 > separate parts. That would mean Harry could theoretically achieve 15 > O.W.L.s, 3 more than both Bill and Barty Crouch Junior. Meri here: I always thought that you got you got one OWL for each passing grade and that some subjects had two exams, a written exam and a practical exam where applicable. For example: Divination - practical exam (reading tea leaves, etc.) DADA - written and practical (theory and actual defense techniques) Charms - written and practical Transfiguration - written and practical CoMC - written and practical History of Magic - written exam (essay questions) Muggle Studies - written exam Runes - written exam Arithmancy - written exam Astrononomy - practical and written exam would be almost the same here Potions - written and practical Herbology - practical By my count, I get sixteen OWLs, and 12 of 16 would be very acceptable. Harry could potentially get 13, and, if that is the normal schedule of exams and classes, then 12 for 13 is excellent. Meri (who, as a Yank, has enough to worry about with MCAS and SATs) From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 21:09:01 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:09:01 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans Mark Equal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89768 Like everyone else, I'm wondering who Mark Evans is, and what purpose he will serve in the upcoming books. The line from the prophesy goes: "And he will mark him as his equal" I don't know if any of the words in the prophesy were changed between the US/UK editions, but if the word 'mark' is stationary, it seems an odd choice from Jo. Not curse him, brand him, or hex him, but "MARK" him as his equal. The ten year old that Dudley beats up is Mark Evans. Obviously, the surname attracts attention, but what about his first name? Mark. I don't know if there's any significance or connection between the two 'marks', but who knows. It's all in their for a reason, folks. Also, an anagram for Mark Evans is Snake Arm V. Thoughts? From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 17:30:12 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:12 -0000 Subject: Crazy thought...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89769 > > Whizbang: > > Oops! ;) Lost in the translation. > > The original premise was that Mark Evans is actually Lily > > and Petunia's father who has manipulated time and shown up to > > help Harry. > > Whizbang > > Carol: > A theory which I had rejected. :-) See my "slight problem" comment > above. I happen to think that Mark Evans is a distant relative of > Harry's who will show up as a Muggle-born wizard at Hogwarts in Book > 6. As for Voldemort somehow harming Petunia's family, I agree that > that's probable. But the whole "Mark Evans is Harry's grandfather" > idea can't work because Harry's maternal grandfather was a Muggle. > Clear now, I hope? > > Carol Whizbang: Then you consider Dumbledore untruthful? And we don't know, yet, if Mark is a wizard. It seems a reasonable guess but ....... And while we're questioning Dumbledore's truthfulness or knowledgableness, maybe we should question if the Evanses were in fact Muggles, and whether Mr Evans was even Lily's father. So many unanswered questions. - Whizbang, who finds these forums hopelessly difficult to discuss anything on. From rredordead at aol.com Tue Jan 27 21:47:31 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:47:31 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <1A1B2349-50E1-11D8-B162-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89770 Fun and absolutely fascinating. I'm cracking open my history books as we speak...well, surfing the web actually. Very well addressed comparison to a figure of history I had not considered. I'll be back after I've done some reading. Cheers Mandy From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 18:25:56 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:25:56 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89771 >Carol > The narrator is just a voice, not a character. Usually but not always > he or she sees from Harry's point of view, but sometimes it's as if > the narrator is an invisible presence witnessing and reporting events > from the outside. We're treated at one point to Vernon Dursley's > thought (though not really his perspective) and at another to Frank > Bryce's. I very much doubt that Dumbledore will ever be the POV > character, simply because he needs to remain mysterious. > > Who else would know that Snape never found out who set him on fire? JKR. > > Carol Does it really matter what perspective JKR writes in? She is the author, she has a creative license to write in whatever style she wants. She could jump from perspective to perspective any way she wants, whatever she sees fit she will do. Something has been bothering me ever since I first visited this site, people seem to mix thoughts. They will either treat the charactars in the books as real people, with real thoughts, real motives; or, treat it from JKR's perspective, asking her motives, her thoughts etc. Should theories be limited to one or the other? Andrew From patnkatng at cox.net Wed Jan 28 00:24:55 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:24:55 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans Mark Equal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Like everyone else, I'm wondering who Mark Evans is, and what > purpose he will serve in the upcoming books. > > The line from the prophesy goes: "And he will mark him as his equal" > > I don't know if any of the words in the prophesy were changed > between the US/UK editions, but if the word 'mark' is stationary, it > seems an odd choice from Jo. Not curse him, brand him, or hex him, > but "MARK" him as his equal. > > The ten year old that Dudley beats up is Mark Evans. Obviously, the > surname attracts attention, but what about his first name? Mark. > > I don't know if there's any significance or connection between the > two 'marks', but who knows. It's all in their for a reason, folks. > > Also, an anagram for Mark Evans is > > Snake Arm V. Thoughts? Katrina: Whenever I (re)read the prophecy, the use of the word, "mark" reminds me of the phrase, "marked man." In that sense, Harry was "marked" even before LV arrived in Godric's Hollow. He was "marked" as soon as LV turned his attention to him. To quote the Cambridge Dictionary of Idioms: [A marked man/woman is] someone who is being watched by someone who wants to harm or kill them. Sounds like our Harry to me. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 18:07:04 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:07:04 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89774 > Mandy here: > > Yes Ollivander does say the "...when it's brother gave you that > scar.", but that's because it's what everyone in the WW believes. > With an absence of witnesses to the events in Godric's Hollow no one > is able to disagree. But it doesn't necessarily mean it actually > happened. DD also told Harry Voldemort gave him his scar but I'm > trusting DD less and less in each book. > > Yes, the prophecy states that Voldemort will "mark him as his equal" > but there has been a lot of debate on this site as to exactly > what 'mark' means. A physical mark or psychological mark? Not to > mention the whole debate on the idea that another could the 'One'. By > they way, I personally believe it is Harry who is one to vanquish > Lord Voldemort not Neville. > > Cheers Mandy Whizbang Please show us in canon any evidence that Lily did a charm. Dying to protect Harry left traces of her love on him that was protective. But it was Dumbledore who did the charm and it required that Harry call home the place where his mother's blood dwells. Dumbledore referring to Petunia: "... yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the stongest shield I could give you." "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you." ~Order of the Phoenix, page 836, American Edition This is clearly telling us that the protective charm was done by Dumbledore himself. He used the "bond of blood" created when Voldemort shed Lily's blood as she willingly sacrificed herself for her child. It also tells us that this protection is only active in the place where his mother's blood dwells, Petunia's home; and that it only protects Harry from Voldemort as it was he who shed Lily's blood. This raises the question, why couldn't Quirrell touch Harry at Hogwarts? Is there someone there who also shares this blood? It seems the logical explanation. Harry so often refers to Hogwarts as his home. Even Voldemort, at the end of GoF, knew that he had to seperate Harry from the Dursleys and get him out from under the crooked nose of Dumbledore. But what he apparently doesn't know is that, away from the Dursleys and Dumbledore, Voldemort probably could have touched Harry anyway. Still, the Dark Lord now has both Harry's blood containing Lily's protection, her blood bond, and Pettigrew's flesh containing a life debt to Harry. By all accounts, Voldemort should be feeling somewhat ill. -Whizbang, who sincerely hopes this post is within the guidelines. From frost_indri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 23:10:40 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:10:40 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <1A1B2349-50E1-11D8-B162-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89775 Kneazy > Browsing through past posts there are a number that compare > characters in the Potterverse with other individuals either fictional, > or less often, real. This can be an illuminating experience; parallels > emerge, aims and ideals seem to become congruent and insights can be > glimpsed which may be relevant to the books we spend so much time > discussing. > < - Cromwell, regicide and dictator (in all > but name). > Now who do you think he might be compared to? > It's all very reminiscent of England in the 1640s. The one trying to > bring about change is characterised as an evil monster, those opposed are determined to maintain their privileged positions come what may. They fear that other marginalised groups (Giants, Goblins) may also seek a re-ordering of society. War is imminent. > > To push the comparison a little further characters could be presented thus: > Tom - Cromwell (the lower order getting even) > DD - King Charles (devious and untrustworthy) > Harry - Prince Rupert (charming but ruthless) > Fudge - Denzil Hollies (parliamentary leader keen to stay at the top) > > Fun, isn't it? Frost: Yes it is. However, Cromwell, whether or not his ends justified his means, did work to lift the yoke of the nobles from the masses. Voldie, admitedly by his own followers, and himself, wishes to saddle the masses (there are a lot more muggle born and half-muggles than pure-bloods) with the nobility. While we must accept a certain amount of spin, the words of the Death Eaters and Voldie himself are what we should judge them by. I think that it is clear that JKR used some parralles between Muggle Germany, pre-WW2 and the WW pre- wizarding war one. I think it would really be interesting to see the story from a Muggles POV, though maybe not the Durselies, as they work very hard to keep a narrow minded POV. Basicly, I think following the Durselies would be boring as heck. Well, maybe not now that thier solid walkl of anti-magic has been broken, but still. But a Muggle POV... That would be interesting. Frost From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 22:22:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:22:56 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89776 > Mandy wrote: > I subscribe to the theory that the > > scar was burned in to Harry's forehead by his mother casting the > > protection charm and not by Voldemort casting the AK curse. > > Sawsan here: > I don't think that Lily could have created that scar because when > Harry went to Ollivander's, Ollivander states that it is curious that > Harry's wand could choose him, when its brother gave him that scar. We > know that Lily did not have a pheonix feather scar. I think she had a > unicorn hair one or something. Anyhow, I don't think that Lily could > have given Harry that scar, the possibility that both Lily and Voldi > did just out of the result of both spells being cast on Harry, but I > think Voldi is the actual one who scarred Harry. After all the > prophecy states: he will mark him as his equal. Carol: However, it's possible that Lily placed a protective charm on him that caused the scar to appear when Voldemort tried to AK Harry. I don't think it was merely her love that protected him. (After all, Barty Crouch's mother also died for her son, but she didn't save him from evil influences--or dementors.) We know from the same scene in Ollivander's that Lily's wand was "a nice wand for charm work" just as James's was "excellent for transfiguration" (SS/PS 82). We know that the reference to James's wand foreshadowed his ability to transform into a stag. The reference to Lily's wand is probably foreshadowing as well. The runes that have been discussed here lately are probably important, too--not because of the appearance of Harry's scar in the films or the illustrations in the books, but because of Hermione's (and Luna's) interest in runes. One of them is bound to notice that Harry's lightning-shaped scar resembles the Eihwas rune, which Hermione confused with Ehwaz on her O.W.L.s: "I mistranslated 'ehwaz'," said Hermione furiously. It means 'partnership,' not 'defense.' I mixed it up with 'eihwaz.'" (OoP 715, Am. ed.). So if eihwaz (defense or protection is indeed lightning-shaped, the scar could be a form of protection for Harry--as well as the mark that Voldemort placed on him ("marked him as his equal"). No time to proofread this to be sure it's clear, but I think the protective charm is perfectly compatible with what we know about the scar in relation to LV and the rune and charm references will be important in relation to the scar as well. Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 01:22:34 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:22:34 -0000 Subject: Longbottoms' memory charm (was Re: Ginny Weasley, Neville, thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89777 Naama: I'm very bad at timeline calculations, but wasn't it said that the Longbottoms incident happened some time *after* Voldemort's downfall? If it was one or two years after, Neville would have been around three years of age ... Bookworm: I always thought that it was only a few weeks, maybe a month or two, after Voldemort's defeat that the Longbottoms were attacked. The wording is vague, but JKR has pointed out the fickleness of people with the way whe describes public reaction to articles about Harry in the Prophet. (p603, US hardcover) "'The Longbottoms were very popular,' said Dumbledore. 'The attacks on them came after Voldemort's fall from pwer, just when everyone thought they were safe. Those attacks caused a wave of fury such as I have never know. The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence was - given their condition - none too reliable.'" The idea of Neville having a memory charm on him has been discussed a couple of times (that I know of, maybe more) and seems entirely possible even if he was only 15-18 months old. Ravenclaw Bookworm From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 28 01:40:55 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:40:55 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89778 > Whizbang wrote: > Please show us in canon any evidence that Lily did a charm. Dying > to protect Harry left traces of her love on him that was > protective. But it was Dumbledore who did the charm and it required > that Harry call home the place where his mother's blood dwells. Mandy here: There is no canon evidence because it a theory that I'm playing with right now. And until we get the whole story of Godric's Hollow I doubt I will be able to back it up with anything concrete. Perhaps not even then. I could very well be completely wrong. But for know, my theory come from the idea that there have been many mothers in the history of the world who have died for their children, and I'm assuming (always dangerous, I admit) that there have been many mothers in the WW who have died for their children as well. However Harry is the first one to receive some kind of `extra special' protection. Enough to protect him from the AK and we do know he is the first to survive the AK. So Lily did something different. What? I don't know. We do know LV talks of her protection being 'Old Magic' so it does exist, but it was used in a way that has never been seen before. How do I know that, well, I don't, but again it's an assumption that there have been other mothers and fathers who have died saving their child from the wrath of the AK. Even possibly from Voldemort's AK, after all he has murdered others before the Potters. And none of them survived like Harry Potter. Lily Potter did something different in that moment that gave Harry the power to be the only person to have survived the AK. And yes, DD charm seals Lily's protection as long as Harry calls his home that of a blood relative. I don't in any way dispute DD contribution to the protection of Harry through the blood of his mum. I just believe Lily did more than just die. Cheers Mandy, whose enjoying having to chew this one over a few times. Although I might end up flogging a dead horse. ;-) From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 01:43:10 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:43:10 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > Yes, but /why/ did he want to get into the Chamber of Secrets? > > "'I thought someone must realise that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the > heir of Slytherin. It had taken /me/ five whole years to find out > everything I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the > secret entrance....'" > > (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition) > > So he'd been digging around since his First Year ot thereabouts. > Sounds a very dedicated investigator... > > Back to my question above.... > Bookworm: Not only did he have an idea about what was in the Chamber, he clearly agreed with "Salazar Slytherin's noble work." (see quote below) Kneasy: Diary!Tom is not the real thing but a magical construct from Malfoy's hands - the real Tom was convalescing in Albania... Bookworm: Malfoy put the diary in Ginny's cauldron, but Tom created it himself: "I knew it wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was still at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work." (CoS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.312 US hardcover) Ravenclaw Bookworm From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 28 01:49:21 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:49:21 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89780 > Carol wrote: > However, it's possible that Lily placed a protective charm on him that caused the scar to appear when Voldemort tried to AK Harry. I don't think it was merely her love that protected him. (After all, Barty Crouch's mother also died for her son, but she didn't save him from> evil influences--or dementors.) We know from the same scene in > Ollivander's that Lily's wand was "a nice wand for charm work" just as James's was "excellent for transfiguration" (SS/PS 82). We know that the reference to James's wand foreshadowed his ability to transform into a stag. The reference to Lily's wand is probably foreshadowing as well. > No time to proofread this to be sure it's clear, but I think the > protective charm is perfectly compatible with what we know about the > scar in relation to LV and the rune and charm references will be > important in relation to the scar as well. Mandy here: Thanks Carol. Phew! I was beginning to think I was all alone out there. ;-) She had to have done more than just die. JKR has set her up as this pro-active, fearless women, powerful at charm work and her protection over Harry is some kind of a charm. Separate from DD's charm of protection that seals it at Petunia's. We know that scar appears after the attack; just how it got there is still a mystery. Cheers Mandy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 01:57:16 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:57:16 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89781 I recently find it somewhat depressing to log into the group, what with all the cheerful predictions of the death of Snape, Molly, Ron and even Harry himself. And if you can't find a post that kills your favorite character, well then, we have a poll for that. This leads me to ask, do we really need any more death cases of major characters? Would this advance the plot? Would it make Harry or the reader realize something they don't understand yet? I think JKR killed Cedric and Sirius because (among other reasons) she wanted us to feel that nobody, even Harry himself, is secure. She knew that until GoF we all said to ourselves: "well, this is a children book after all, so of course Good Will Prevail and everybody will live Happily Ever After", and even after GoF we said to ourselves: "but the main characters are safe from death, because JKR must not traumatize all her young readers". So she decided to increase the suspense and raise the stakes on us. Now that she put the fear of JKR into our hearts, does she really have to kill somebody important? If she wants to get somebody out of the game for plot reasons, there are ways to do it other than killing him (for example, Hermione petrified in CoS). Even self-sacrifice does not necessitate death, as we've seen from Ron's sacrifice in SS/PS. Note that JKR usually uses magical plot devices twice. This is more fun than once because by the second time we are already aware of the device's existence and may see it coming if we are very perceptive. But three times would be predictive recycling. I mean, if we were now to discover that Crookshanks or Trevor are unauthorized animagi, we would say: "OK, we saw this coming a mile away. JKR must be losing her magic touch". But doesn't the same apply for killing a major character? IMHO, if there are polls in HPGU about whose going to die next, then this is a good indication that this specific dramatic device was exploited. From the sudden way JKR killed both Cedric and Sirius, I got the impression she doesn't like drown out death scenes (and I quite agree since this is one of the most used Hollywood clich?s). Both death scenes read to me like JKR was quickly getting rid off something she must do but does not enjoy. OK, I do seem to remember that JKR said in some interview that there will be many people dying. But I think this was before GoF, wasn't it? Well, since then we did have Frank Brice, Bertha, Crouch Sr., Crouch Jr., Cedric, Bode and Sirius (sorry if I forgot anybody). A respectable number for what *is* a children book. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be many more secondary characters dying. This is a war, after all. But my hunch is that by the end of book 7 all the major characters (except maybe DD) will be left standing, if a bit battered. Neri, who is as always good at finding oh so rational justifications for his perverse optimism From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Wed Jan 28 00:24:20 2004 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (Gail Ann Bohacek) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:24:20 -0000 Subject: (FILK) When I Fell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89782 I tried to post this earlier and I thought it had gone through, but I just checked and I did not see it on the list, so I'm posting it again. When I Fell (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _If I Fell_ by the Beatles) Dedicated to Haggridd, who once requested that I write a "sweet filk" to this tune. Er...I hope this will suffice. Midi is here: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/7779/beatle04.html Dennis Creevey: When I fell into the lake My survival was at stake And, "Help him!" someone cried If it wasn't for the Squid And for what that creature did I just would have died When I fell out of the boat It was storming And the clouds above That moat were direfully swarming In that cold storm-tossed deluge I sank right down And having had lost refuge I almost drowned that night In those harsh turbulent waves And I couldn't imagine how I Would be saved But then something large appeared Pushed me to safety And Hagrid then steered The boat over to me Pulled me back into the boat And he wrapped me up in his immense mole-skin coat So I told my one brother And he said to me It was none other Than the Squid, no mistake It pushed me out of the lake -Gail B. houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 02:08:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:08:39 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89783 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: Sigune, the point I'm addressing isn't your main point, but I still think it's worth asking about. Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate about the dark arts? I am just wondering whether "passionate about" the dark arts might be going a little too far, for what we know of Severus. Please fire away if I'm way off and there is concrete evidence in canon! > Sigune again: > I would like to clarify one thing first: if I called > Snape 'passionate about the Dark Arts' I wasn't referring to the DADA > position but to a general interest, so I would like to split up my > arguments. > > 1. Interest in the Dark Arts as a branch of magic: > We know - though, well, again not from Snape himself - that Snape was > already into Dark Arts when at Hogwarts; that would be Sirius (or > Remus? I haven't got my book here) saying so in OoP [somewhere after > the Pensieve bit, where Harry wants explanations for James's > bullying]. They explain James's antipathy towards 'Snivellus' by > pointing out that Potter hated the Dark Arts whereas Snape studied > them. > Carol: I'm not sure who I agree with here, but Sirius's statement that young Severus was "up to his eyes in the dark arts" was not quite true, unless you count his coming to Hogwarts at age eleven knowing more hexes than most sixth years. The Dark Arts are not taught at Hogwarts, so what he was up to his eyes in (quite literally in the Pensieve scene where he has his nose pressed to the parchment and is writing extremely long and detailed answers in a small hand) is DADA. However, I do think that he was genuinely interested in the Dark Arts as both a field of research and a potential career. We like what we're good at and we're good at what we like. I think, as I've said elsewhere, that it was his skill and knowledge in the Dark Arts was what seduced him into joining Voldemort, hoping, I'm sure, for more recognition and appreciation than he received at Hogwarts. Sigune: > Personally I like the idea of a Dark Sorcerer who isn't quite as bad > as he looks at first sight; I can imagine someone taking an > intellectual interest in the Dark Arts without necessarily growing > into a Voldemort. I mean, they /are/ fascinating after all. Carol: I agree, but then I like Snape as everyone on the list must know by now. He has a logical mind and is highly gifted. It's time those gfts were recognized and rewarded. In fact, I'm sure that Dumbledore does recognize them and will reward him once he's paid that life debt to James via Harry--assuming that they both survive to the end of Book 7. Sigune: Also I > must agree with the person [sorry sorry, forgot who it was] who > posted on another thread that they can't believe Dumbledore would > trust Snape if he had killed Muggle(born)s under LV's command - > though I don't know how he could have avoided it and stay alive... > But then I suppose he would be cleverer than my humble self :). Carol: That was my suggestion. Glad you agree. :-) I don't know how he stays alive, either. I just know that he's brilliant and mysterious and intriguing. And I know I'll be jumped on for this, but he's not the only one who abuses Neville. McGonagall calls Neville an idiot, gives him detention, and refuses to let him know the passwords after his list ends up in Sirius Black's hands (PoA). She also says something like, "Don't let the people from Durmstrang know that you're incapable of performing a simple switching spell" (GoF) after he plants hi own ears on a cactus. (To be sure, his poor performance in both classes would try the patience of any teacher. How many cauldrons has he gone through now?) I can find the exact quotes and page numbers if anyone wants them, and I'm not anti-Neville so please don't feel compelled to defend him, anyone. I think he's made real progress and just needs practice and self-confidence--not to mention his own wand. It will be interesting to see how Snape deals with a competent and confident Neville if Neville somehow gets into Snape's N.E.W.T.s potions. Sorry to ramble in that last paragraph. I know it has nothing to do with Snape's interest in the Dark Arts (or DADA). Carol From frost_indri at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 00:06:00 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:06:00 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89784 "Geoff Bannister" : >> > There you go; straight from the horse's mouth. > > > Geoff: > Ah, let's go back to the horse's mouth... >> > 'The servant died when I left his body and I was left as weak as I > had ever been...'" > > (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.567 UK edition) > > Hmm. Self-confessed by the big V himself methinks. Frost: So, does that mean we could call him Voldihorse? Frost *ducking and preparing to be hit by dung bombs* From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 00:33:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:33:58 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? (and wizard aristocracy in general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89785 > Sigune reflects: > I dunno - he doesn't particularly strike me as the aristocratic type; > I am not sure if I can explain why not. But even if you are quite > right to point out that aristocratic roots don't equal "good form", I > feel bound to say that likewise, arrogance and hauteur do not > preclude aristocracy. > > Somehow, I have come to think of Snape as a 'self-made man', which > one could argue is a quintessentially middle-class concept. He is > ambitious and hard-working. Also, judging from what we saw in the > Occlumency lessons, he seems to have sort of reinvented himself at > one point inbetween his schooldays and the arrival of Harry at > Hogwarts. - As you point out, he has gained confidence. > [*Question*: is there any canon evidence of his using swearwords > other than in the scenes from his memory?] > > I don't know how this sounds to other people, but it seems to me that > Snape's arrogance is connected with the quality of his thinking as > Hermione signalled in PS: unlike many wizards, Snape thinks > logically. His arrogance stems from his impatience with people who > make errors of logic because they don't think rationally enough (to > his taste). > > It also struck me that Sirius called Snape 'Lucius Malfoy's lapdog'. > Even when he meant it as a provocation, I get the impression > throughout the books that Lucius Malfoy thinks of Snape as an ally or > supporter, but in a patronising sort of way - Malfoy is the one with > the power to make things happen and by no means regards Snape as an > equal, which I think he would be more likely to do if Snape were on > an equal footing with him socially. > > I entirely agree with your view of him as someone who tries hard to > better himself in the sense that he wants to make up for an > impoverished family background. His pride and confidence at present > may be related to a sense of achievement of sorts then. But I am not > sure that this precludes an aristocratic family. Yet again, I have no > definite proof, and this may be a piece of "Snape-as-I-would-like-him- > to-turn-out-to-be" :). > > Yours severely, > > Sigune Just to clarify your argument, do you mean doesn't "imply" an aristocratic family? "Preclude" means exclude or prevent the existence of, which I think is the opposite of your intended meaning. (I think I essentially agree with you, but I'm not quite sure.) Thanks, Carol P.S. On the subject of "aristocratic" wizards, I get the feeling that the Muggle-born Justin Finch-Fletchley comes from the *Muggle* aristocracy or gentry based on his name. I'm wondering if Sir Nicholas de Mimsey-Porpington's aristocratic background is a Muggle heritage as well, especially as he was the only ghost to be petrified in CoS. Was he Muggle-born like the petrified students? And totally off the subject, the 400 vs. 500 year discrepancy regarding Sir Nick's death date can be resolved by his clothing. No one wore ruffs in 1492. They were a sixteenth- (and possibly early seventeenth-) century fashion. Consequently his death date must be 1592, not 1492 (400, not 500, years before CoS). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 00:58:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:58:52 -0000 Subject: Narrative style and POV In-Reply-To: <20040127123648.89968.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Darrell Harris wrote: > The narrator is just a voice, not a character. Usually > but not always > he or she sees from Harry's point of view, but > sometimes it's as if > the narrator is an invisible presence witnessing and > reporting events > from the outside. We're treated at one point to Vernon > Dursley's > thought (though not really his perspective) and at > another to Frank > Bryce's. I very much doubt that Dumbledore will ever > be the POV > character, simply because he needs to remain > mysterious. > > Who else would know that Snape never found out who set > him on fire? > JKR. > > Carol > > > I think it's easier to compare this to a biographer's > prospective. After interviewing those involved taking > copious notes one reconstructs the story then retells > it from the knowledge gained. When possible one uses > 1st person perspective for direct quotes and input. > Where one couldn't rebuild the 1st person knowledge > the information is presented using the available data > that was gleaned from those who were there. Carol responds: Admittedly a biographer, like a novelist, writes in the third person, quoting his sources (including letters to and from his subject), but he or she strives (not always successfully) for an objective point of view that allows little dialogue (unless the biographer is a witness to the events and is writing from memory or a recorded interview) and never allows him or herself inside the head of the subject of the biography. The narrator of a novel, however, has essentially five viewpoints to choose from: first-person participant, first-person spectator, third-person omniscient (narrator knows everything and can be considered generally reliable), third-person limited omniscient, and third-person dramatic (narrator reports the characters' words and actions from the outside and can be considered wholly reliable). First-person narrators can only depict events that they have witnessed or participated in (or heard about). They are in general somewhat unreliable if only because their viewpoint is so limited. If they're a naive narrator like Huckleberry Finn, they are very unreliable, forcing the reader to interpret events that the narrator has misinterpreted. I won't go into the reasons why JKR has chosen not to have a first-person narrator; I'll just say that it wouldn't work for this series. Instead she's chosen a limited omniscient narrator who usually but not always tells the story from Harry's perspective. Occasionally she chooses another POV character--or none at all. In at least three instances that I mentioned in my previous post, she reports events that Harry is unaware of from an outside perspective, which could arguably be either third-person omniscient or third-person dramatic. None of these points of view is that used by an ostensibly objective reporter or biographer, who is dealing with real people, not characters, and cannot get inside his subject's head. A limited omniscient narrator, like a first-person narrator, colors the narrative with the perspective of the POV character. When that narrator is a boy between eleven and fifteen who is learning about the WW as he experiences it (and is often wrong in his conclusions and judgments), we need to be careful when we accept as fact anything the narrator says. Is this statement the truth as JKR has defined it or is it Harry's perception of the truth? In any case, my whole point in writing my original post is that Harry is never the narrator, nor is Dumbledore. My final question repeated one asked by Pippin, who suggested that the narrator (meaning, I think, POV) was Dumbledore. I don't think Dumbledore's point of view is or will be given in this novel, any more than we'll see Snape's. (I could be wrong, though--who'd have thought we'd see from Voldemort's?) In any case, in the scene where Hermione sets Snape's robes on fire, I think we can temporarily consider the narrative voice to be JKR's own, or, if you prefer, that of an omniscient narrator. Clearly the POV in that scene isn't Harry's or any character's. It's the narrator's own. Carol, who hopes she isn't boring everybody to tears with this thread From erinellii at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 03:14:53 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:14:53 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89787 > Carol: Sirius's statement that young > Severus was "up to his eyes in the dark arts" was not quite true, > unless you count his coming to Hogwarts at age eleven knowing more > hexes than most sixth years. The Dark Arts are not taught at Hogwarts, > so what he was up to his eyes in (quite literally in the Pensieve > scene where he has his nose pressed to the parchment and is writing > extremely long and detailed answers in a small hand) is DADA. Erin: Just because something isn't taught at school doesn't mean that a student cannot be deeply involved in it. Suppose there was a student who was taking a computer programming class, was making straight A's in it, and then someone told your that he was "up to his eyeballs in hacking" Would you protest that since his class didn't teach you how to be a hacker, he couldn't be one? That what he had to be "up to his eyeballs in" was simple programming? Students have interests outside of class, you know. --Erin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 03:24:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:24:34 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > >--JDR > >I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact > >and the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. > > Mandy here: > > Could JKR kill and/or maim another mother in the series? It would be > awful. > > After all we already have: > Harry's mum murdered > Neville's tortured > Tom Riddle's dead in childbirth agony > Sirius' mother dead and her memory portrait seriously deranged. > > I don't think I could take any more. Molly is the only > representation of a 'mum' loving, nurturing and alive that we and > Harry have. For her to die it would be devastating. > > However it might be the big kick in the arse that Ron needs to step > up to the plate. > > Mandy, hoping Molly will survive to see her kids into old age. Just a thought. Many fantasies, folk tales, and fairy tales begin with the hero (or heroine) already orphaned, or a parent, usually the mother, is killed off early in the story. It's unusual for the mother to die after the son (or daughter) has already been to some degree emotionally weaned from her. Take virtually any character from Bambi to Harry himself. The death of the mother is a plot device to force the hero to come to terms with life without the sheltering love of a mother. But to kill off a surrogate mother like Molly at a stage when the hero has outgrown that need (or the best friend's mother when he also is growing up) serves no such purpose. It's male friends and father figures that matter to Harry now, as we saw with Sirius. So, as I stated in the previous post, I think Molly will suffer greatly and lose more than one son, but I don't think she herself will die. (I don't think Ron will die, either. That would be too big a blow to JKR's young readers. But that's just my own gut feeling, not an argument I can support with canon or logic.) Carol From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 03:31:42 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89789 Carol said: >And I know I'll be jumped on for this, but he's not the >only one who abuses Neville. McGonagall calls Neville an idiot, gives >him detention, and refuses to let him know the passwords after his >list ends up in Sirius Black's hands (PoA). Well, I'm not jumping, but I don't consider justified punishment abuse. Snape's tormenting is abuse. What McGonagall did was strict punishment for an amazingly stupid and potentially dangerous action on Neville's part. Not just losing the list (and I think Scabbers stole it from him and he never noticed), but writing the passwords down in the first place. If Neville lived in a real-world dormitory and he left a copy of the combination to the lock on the front door, or a copy of the key, where anyone including dangerous criminals could get at them, what would those in charge of the dorm's security have to say to him? Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 03:10:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:10:33 -0000 Subject: Re Sirius and Molly (Was: Harry and the chocolate egg) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89790 -> The Sergeant Majorette says > > That's exactly why I thought Molly would be the one to die in Book V. > Sirius didn't really seem important enough for all the hype. And > really, his death scene wasn't all that traumatic, compared to, say, > Cedric's; not to mention the fact that the Blacks, being purebloods, > probably aren't *right*. Sirius' behaviour is Psych 101 bipolar: if > he had lived, his symptoms would have gotten out of control. > > I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact and > the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. > > Not looking forward to it, at all, and I sure wouldn't mind being > wrong. > > --JDR Carol: I think Sirius's mental or emotional instability is the result of his twelve years in Azkaban, not his status as a pureblood. However arrogant and ewckless he was as a boy, he wasn't bipolar. Also isn't Molly also a pureblood? My impression is that Mrs. Black calls the Weasleys "blood traitors" because of their association with Muggle-borns like Hermione and "half-bloods" like Harry rather than because they've married outside the pureblood families. (I'm not sure how she knows that they're not purebloods, but Draco implies in GoF that the DEs will recognize Hermione on sight as a Muggle-born, and Tom Riddle also seems to know when he chooses the basilisk's victims in CoS.) As for Molly's death, I think it's more likely that her boggart will prove prophetic. I'm pretty sure that more than one son will die--maybe Charlie in Book 6 given his dangerous profession but someone we know more about and feel closer to in Book 7. I'm betting on Percy, but maybe it will be the twins. (Can you see JKR killing one twin and letting the other live? That would be the ultimate cruelty to them both.) Watch out for that clock in the hallway. More than one hand will point to "mortal peril." Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 01:38:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:38:22 -0000 Subject: Harry and special abilities (was Occlumency and Shield Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89791 > > Carol: > > I think Hitomi may be misreading JKR's use of the phrase "my hero." > > She doesn't mean that he's her personal hero as Popeye is Olive > > Oyl's--"my hero!" (swoon)--in the old cartoons. (Sorry I can't think > > of a better example). She simply means that he's her protagonist, > the > > hero of the book she's writing, not her personal hero. > > > > Carol, who apologizes for the bad example. No ridicule intended. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan now: > > Carol, I don't like to nitpick...but I suppose I am. That's an > awfully strong statement: "She [JKR] doesn't mean that he's her > personal hero.... She simply means that he's her protagonist...." > How do you KNOW this? You've stated it as fact, not opinion, but how > do you know? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I don't know. Please note that I began my post by saying "I think" that Hitomi "may" be misreading. I should have used "I thinK" again to precede the second and third sentences. I thought the fact that it was my opinion was already clear. I do seem to be making pronouncements lately, mostly about limited omniscient narrators. Blame my tendency to state opinions as assertions on too many years in graduate school. Seriously, as I stated in the post, my intention was not to ridicule (and I really hated that Olive Oyl example but it was the only one I could think of at the moment). I was trying to suggest that, generally, the hero of a novel is the same as the protagonist and not the same as the author's real hero (if any), who is generally a real person. To illustrate: My favorite character is Snape, who could conceivably be the "hero" (or anti-hero) of a fan fic novel I might choose to write. He would be "my hero" in the sense of "my protagonist," but he certainly would not be my personal hero (who is a real figure from British history). I hope that clears up my meaning and intentions, and, Hitomi, please forgive me for sounding like an English teacher. It's a hard role to throw off, even after nearly five years away from academia. Carol From amani at charter.net Wed Jan 28 03:44:18 2004 From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:44:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do we need any more death cases? References: Message-ID: <009601c3e551$02809a00$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89792 Neri: I recently find it somewhat depressing to log into the group, what with all the cheerful predictions of the death of Snape, Molly, Ron and even Harry himself. And if you can't find a post that kills your favorite character, well then, we have a poll for that. This leads me to ask, do we really need any more death cases of major characters? Would this advance the plot? Would it make Harry or the reader realize something they don't understand yet? I think JKR killed Cedric and Sirius because (among other reasons) she wanted us to feel that nobody, even Harry himself, is secure. She knew that until GoF we all said to ourselves: "well, this is a children book after all, so of course Good Will Prevail and everybody will live Happily Ever After", and even after GoF we said to ourselves: "but the main characters are safe from death, because JKR must not traumatize all her young readers". So she decided to increase the suspense and raise the stakes on us. Now that she put the fear of JKR into our hearts, does she really have to kill somebody important? If she wants to get somebody out of the game for plot reasons, there are ways to do it other than killing him (for example, Hermione petrified in CoS). Even self-sacrifice does not necessitate death, as we've seen from Ron's sacrifice in SS/PS. Taryn: Well, she doesn't HAVE to, I guess, but that's called anti-climactic, which is a total killer for a good story. We are expecting people to die because this is a war and it would hardly be an impactful one if no one died. JKR HAS put fear into our hearts, and if she doesn't make good this fear, then we have an anti-climactic storyline. What would be the point of her saying, "Okay, I just want you to know that nobody is safe, not even Harry!" and then at the end of the series saying, "Fooled you! They really are safe. No harm done!"? Would you really want to read that? Neri: Note that JKR usually uses magical plot devices twice. This is more fun than once because by the second time we are already aware of the device's existence and may see it coming if we are very perceptive. But three times would be predictive recycling. I mean, if we were now to discover that Crookshanks or Trevor are unauthorized animagi, we would say: "OK, we saw this coming a mile away. JKR must be losing her magic touch". But doesn't the same apply for killing a major character? IMHO, if there are polls in HPGU about whose going to die next, then this is a good indication that this specific dramatic device was exploited. Taryn: But there's a very large difference between her magical plot devices and death. The devices are introduced in one book and then pop up as a surprise the second time around (unless, as you say, one is VERY perceptive). Their second time around, they are usually present for the whole storyling if you can pick out the clues. Death is not. Sure, in book 5 we were all waiting for the one big death, but there weren't exactly solid, factual clues lying about because it wasn't going on throughout the story. The whole point is that death is a sudden, undiscriminating factor that you can't predict will happen. Death is unique in its manner of providing motivation for all sorts of things and the fact that us knowing its coming does not lessen its value (IMO, anyway). After all, it's not a magical device JKR has invented and is milking to an extreme. It's a fact of life, ESPECIALLY during wartime, and JKR has been NOTHING if not realistic. Well. Y'know. Barring the whole magic, wizards, and witches thing. You know what I mean. ;) It doesn't necessarily HAVE to teach Harry anything because of its very sudden and ever-present nature. But I have a feeling there will be events or motivations spurred from upcoming deaths (esp. DD's). Then again, I've ALWAYS loved death in literature. I'm a total sucker for it. Makes me bawl (when done right), but Iove a good tragedy. Neri: OK, I do seem to remember that JKR said in some interview that there will be many people dying. But I think this was before GoF, wasn't it? Well, since then we did have Frank Brice, Bertha, Crouch Sr., Crouch Jr., Cedric, Bode and Sirius (sorry if I forgot anybody). A respectable number for what *is* a children book. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be many more secondary characters dying. This is a war, after all. But my hunch is that by the end of book 7 all the major characters (except maybe DD) will be left standing, if a bit battered. Taryn: No, that interview was post-GoF. You can take a look here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2001/1201-guardian-yates.htm December 28, 2001. She talks about "...deaths, more deaths coming..." and refers to the infamous "at least one death that's going to be horrible to write," the obvious reference to Sirius. (And note the "at least," too.) --Taryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 02:09:58 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:09:58 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > > Lily Potter did something different in that moment that gave Harry > the power to be the only person to have survived the AK. > > And yes, DD charm seals Lily's protection as long as Harry calls his > home that of a blood relative. I don't in any way dispute DD > contribution to the protection of Harry through the blood of his > mum. I just believe Lily did more than just die. > > Cheers Mandy, whose enjoying having to chew this one over a few > times. Although I might end up flogging a dead horse. ;-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Whizbang here: lol. You may have to stand in line to flog that horse. I've been in line for awhile now. ;) Isn't it posible that Harry, being "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord," was able to reverse the charm himself? Or perhaps, the first strike could only mark him as the prophesy said would happen. I think that Harry is capable of wandless magic especially when emotionally provoked. Being present at his mother's murder must have evoked powerful emotions in little Harry and may have triggered an emotional response that produced a magical effect at the same moment the AK was cast. It's not impossible that Harry was attempting to kill Voldemort at the same time. His spell rebounded Voldemort's AK, but Voldemort's immortality spells prevented his death, so ripped from his body and left less than the meanest ghost, Voldemort was left in a state that was "worse than dead." I suspect that the big V has been seperated from his life force which is now in the scar on Harry's forehead, probably as a result of whatever immortality spells actually worked. He doesn't know himself. This not only transferred his powers to Harry, making Harry his equal, it provides the connection between them that Snape speaks of in the first occlumency lesson. :) No wonder the poor kid has headaches. ;) -Whizbang From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 02:54:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:54:00 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89794 -> NORA: > > That's an interesting idea, and I think there's something to > > support it--but for the interview comments made. > > > > (Ah, here it is): quoting (from the Royal Albert Hall webcast): > > > > *When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape > > said "I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please" > > and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so > > said "I think we'll get you to teach Potions and see how you get > > along there".* > > > > That does punch something of a hole in the theory...he may keep > > applying year after year as something of a cover, maybe something > > of a game, but it's clear from that that at least at one point, he > > did want that job. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > Thank you for that reminder, Nora. Even though I've read that > interview in its entirety at least 3 times, I still forget things > I've read there! > > As a *small* bit in my own defense, though, I would include the line > JKR said just before where you started to quote: "That is an > excellent question and the reason is I have to be careful not to > say too much." That's probably not enough to dig my way out of this > one, but.... :-) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol: I think you have some wiggle room here, thanks to JKR's evasive manner of answering important questions. It looks to me as if she's improvising here to get herself out of a tight spot. Even if the dialogue between Snape and DD does reflect what she has already determined "really happened" (as opposed to being invented at that moment), it has the marks of being paraphrased and incomplete. Note that she "doesn't want to say too much," so, like DD, she's not giving us the whole truth. Also we need to remember how young Snape was at the time, just twenty-one and with a year of spying but no teaching experience to his credit, yet Dumbledore, who clearly needed to fill the Potions as well as the DADA position, gave the young man the job because he knew he had the knowledge to teach it. So maybe the original situation was roughly as JKR sketches it in the interview, with young Snape wanting DADA and getting Potions instead, but his desire to teach DADA instead instead of potions could still be deliberately manipulated by both Snape and DD as part of his cover as a spy or double agent. I think he wants the job, but he's using his thwarted desire for his own and Dumbledore's ends. In other words, this is another instance when both sides can be right. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 02:28:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:28:39 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "suehpfan" wrote: > Sue here. As I was reading GOF for the umpteenth time it occured to > me that most people (like me) assume that the two missing DE's > Voldemort mentions are Snape and Karkarof, but what if they are not? > I don't have the books in front of me, but I know there was at least > one reference to the fact that none of the DE's knew who all of the > others were, and there must have been more than the few that > apparated into the grave yard. I know that Snape's mark burned and > that he was to apparate immediately to the spot where Voldemort > called him, but it seems possible that there were other groups > meeting in other places to get instructions. > > That would mean, of course, that Snape was not necessarily in > Voldemort's "inner circle". Since Serius refered to him as "Malfoy's > lap dog" and he said himself it was his job to find out what other > DE's were doing, not Voldemort, it seems possible to me that his > working for both sides could be in a different context. Since he > would only see Voldemort occassionally his need to hide his thoughts > would be tested less often. Perhaps he needs only to fool Malfoy and > other DE's. This would make working as a spy a bit less complicated > and the information he would need to share about DD less sensitive. > Snape could simply say the DD trusts him enough to give him a job but > gives him no other information. > > If in fact the missing DE's are not Snape and Karkarof who could they > be? > > Just thinking out loud. > Sue Carol: I think the missing DEs are Karkaroff (who ran off like a coward) and Snape (who couldn't have been in the graveyard for reasons I've stated in other posts and whose loyalty LV has every reason to suspect because of the Qiirrell matter. He wouldn't care whether Snape was knowingly working against him; he was thwarting Quirrell and loyal to DD, which would be enough to condemn him in LV's less than merciful view). I also think that Snape *chose* to remain at Hogwarts rather than try to find a way to obey the summons, based on his words to Karkaroff, but that the inability to apparate from Hogwarts provided him with a convenient excuse that he could pass on to Lucius Malfoy. Notice that LV did not name the one he believes has left them forever and must be killed (or the one who was cowardly and must be punished--I forget the exact words). The DEs in the graveyard, including Lucius Malfoy, may have their suspicions, but they don't know for certain who the "traitors" are unless LV chooses to tell them at a later date. (Possibly he's sent some of those who weren't in the MoM after Karkaroff but we don't know that.) Anyway, I agree with you that Snape is obtaining his information through Lucius Malfoy and possibly a few other DEs he knew in school and not through Voldemort directly. And Voldemort is, I think, pretending to believe Snape's excuse (as presented by Malfoy) in hopes of learning useful information about Hogwarts from Snape via Malfoy. In other words, I'm arguing that Snape couldn't have been in the graveyard and must be the one who "has left us forever," but I agree with you that he's dealing primarily with Malfoy and not with LV directly. But with Malfoy in Azkaban, that situation has to change, and Snape's danger is almost certain to increase in the next two books. It will be interesting to see his interactions with Draco and the other sons of Death Eaters in Book 6. . . . Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 01:09:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:09:50 -0000 Subject: Re Snape's nape (Was: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89796 > Ali > > (Who's decided that Snape will lose his head - hence Severed Nape). I dearly hope you're wrong, but I can just picture Snape returning to Hogwarts as a ghost and continuing his rivalry with Gryffindor by pointedly reminding Nearly Headless Nick at every opportunity of his own eligibility for membership in the Headless Hunt club. He could be the Bloody Baron's right-hand man instead of Dumbledore's. Carol, who really wants Snape to save Harry's life in Book 7 and be rewarded with the no-longer-jinxed DADA position From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 04:26:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:26:21 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89797 Andrew asked: > Does it really matter what perspective JKR writes in? She is the > author, she has a creative license to write in whatever style she > wants. She could jump from perspective to perspective any way she > wants, whatever she sees fit she will do. Something has been > bothering me ever since I first visited this site, people seem to > mix thoughts. They will either treat the charactars in the books as > real people, with real thoughts, real motives; or, treat it from > JKR's perspective, asking her motives, her thoughts etc. Should > theories be limited to one or the other? Carol: Yes, it matters very much. JKR's (or any author's) choice of narrator is not just a matter of style. It's a deliberate choice by the author to reveal or withhold information, and even sometimes deliberately mislead the reader. If she had used an omniscient narrator who revealed everything, the books would be much less challenging. We'd know Snape's thoughts and Dumbledore's thoughts and everyone else's thoughts, and the statements of the narrator could be taken as absolute truths (within the context of the novel). As it is, we're trapped for the most part in Harry's perspective. We learn as he learns and all too often, we misjudge as he misjudges. But some of us on this list have learned not to trust the narrator when he (or she) makes statements that could be colored by Harry's viewpoint, which is why some people on this board won't accept Harry's Pensieve-based memory of "another Gryffindor quidditch player running his hands through his hair" (quoting from memory here) as reliable evidence that James Potter was indeed in Gryffindor. (I think he was, but I see their point.) Others think that Remus Lupin or Dumbledore or Bill Weasley is or may be evil. (That's not my view, but JKR's use of a limited omniscient narrator who is not always reliable and who drops both hints and red herrings leaves those possibilities open to exploration.) I don't know what to say about your second point. There are a huge number of people posting here and we all see the characters in different ways and from different perspectives. I'm also pretty sure that we, as individuals, use different methods of analysis (or speculation) depending on what we're talking about. When I talk about point of view, I'm speaking as a former college English teacher with a Ph.D. in English. When I'm talking about Snape, I'm talking about a character who fascinates me (in part because of JKR's narrative strategy of not allowing readers into his mind). When I'm talking about Mark Evans, I'm trying to figure out what role he might play in the books based on my knowledge of the way JKR has introduced other characters in previous books. (Remember "young Sirius Black," whose motorcycle Hagrid borrowed in Book One?) When I see a theory that intrigues me (Harry's mother put a protective charm on him that, along with LV's Avada Kedavra, created the scar in a distinctive and significant shape), I try to find canonical evidence to support it. When I find one I think is wrong, I try to argue against it, using canonical evidence when I can and logic when I can't. Sometimes I'm forced to speculate, but I try to base the speculation on what has already happened in the story or what JKR is known to have done or said. Enough said. I know you weren't talking about me in particular when you talked about mixing thoughts. I was just trying to explain why all the posts (and posters) use different approaches, using myself as an example. It might make things a little less confusing if you skip the FILKS and T-BAY posts since the perspective there is creative rather than analytical. Just a suggestion! Carol, who hopes this post has been helpful and that she doesn't sound too much like a grown-up Hermione. From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 28 01:17:43 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:17:43 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89798 > Kneasy wrote: > > Godrics Hollow has been the subject of much discussion, but do we > > really know what happened? I don't think we do. It all > seems a bit fishy to me. > Geoff wrote: > Yes we do. We hear it from Voldemort himself. There you go; straight from the horse's mouth. Mandy here: No, LV doesn't tell use anything about what actually happened at Godric's Hollow. He tells us the mistakes he made in failing to kill Harry. We still don't know exactly what happened, what the timeline of events were from when LV approached the house to the moment the house was destroyed. What we do know is James died, Lily died, Harry didn't die, LV almost died. In the meanwhile Lily somehow managed to put some kind of 'protection' over her son before she died, LV then killed her, then he AK'd Harry it `rebounded' (what ever that means) and LV was `almost' killed, the house blew-up, and Harry, after surviving the AK, thanks to his mum, somehow managed to survive the destruction of an entire house only to be found in the rubble. There are so many questions it's ridiculous. What spells did LV use to kill James and Lily? What did Lily do to Harry? What did the rebounded AK do to Harry, LV and the House? Did the AK destroy the house? Because AK's don't usually destroy the anything but the intended victim, certainly not entire houses. So what exactly happened to the house? And who and what destroyed it? How did Harry survive that? Was there a witness? Was LV alone or did he have back- up? If so who? What happened in the missing 24 hours? Etc. Etc. Etc. It goes on and on. I know JKR will answer it all by book 7 but in the mean time so many people are taking so much for granted without questioning the sparse evidence we have. That's fine by me if it makes them happy, but I'm getting tired of having to explain to people that just because a character says something is so it doesn't mean it's gospel. So LV admits to his Death Eaters he made a mistake, it doesn't tell us what actually happened. Cheers Mandy. From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 20:43:13 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:43:13 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89800 I'm remembering the scene in OOP where Umbridge is trying to boot Trelawney. Dumbledore didn't seem at all perturbed by Umbridge sacking Trelawney, only that she was trying to remove her from the castle. We learn at the end of OOP that, as far as DD knows, the woman has given two predictions. Two predictions yield sixteen years of income and security teaching a subject that DD wasn't sure he even wanted to continue at Hogwarts. IMO, Hermione and McGonagall are right in their estimation of the subject: it's rubbish. I think DD keeps Trelawney at the castle for her protection. LV's informant was thrown from the Hog's Head half way through the prophecy, but surely he/she saw who was giving it! Pretty good reason for DD to give Trelawney a job all these years isn't it? Snape. DE, or reformed? Regardless of the speculation, all we know about him is that he WAS a DE, according to DD, and he now teaches at Hogwarts, obtaining the post of potions master right before LV's fall. Why did DD do that? Why did he allow him to teach at the school? Perhaps 'allow' isn't the right word. Maybe we need to be broaching this one from the same perspective as Trelawney, protection. Before LV's return, how many former (Free) DE's sat around talking about the old days? Is their any reference to Snape and Lucius discussing the Dark Lordthingy? If Lucius and whoever else believed that Snape had turned traitor before LV's return, wouldn't he need protection also? Flitwick. Some have argued that he's half elf. The apptitude for charms, the short stature, the squeaky voice. I don't think I've been able to find a consensus on non-domesticated house elves, but if there isn't such a thing; if all elves (Half or less) are required to be subservient to wizards, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if people were to know his true heritage (Sound like anyone we know? Anyone, say taller and wider than a 'normal' man?) wouldn't he be in danger of being 'enslaved'? Fierenze. This one's a gimme. He came to Hogwarts to help out DD, and now he can't return to his home in the forest. The castle definitely serves the function of protection for Fierenze. Hagrid. He was allowed to remain at Hogwarts after his expulsion in his third year as gameskeeper. But, really, where else could he have gone? His dad died, his mum was off in the mountains. Perhaps he could've gone to join her. But, if Hagrid's 'tale' is accurate, how long would he have survived living amongst creatures even bigger than him? And, when Hagrid came to get Harry in the beginning of Book 1, the people on the underground were extremely wary of Hagrid's size. So, living as a muggle, like his dad, is pretty much out of the question. Where else could Hagrid have gone? It's been emphasized over five books just how safe Hogwarts is. We've seen the castle used as a hiding place for the philosopher's stone in book 1. Not to mention Harry. Harry is safe there. I just don't think he's the only one benefiting from it's many spells and enchantments and 'protection' Can anyone else think of someone who may have may have been placed at Hogwarts for their own protection? McGonagall? Sprout? Pomfrey? Vector? Filch? From lovefromhermione at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 04:15:12 2004 From: lovefromhermione at yahoo.com (lovefromhermione) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:15:12 -0000 Subject: Choices - or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89801 Kneasy (aptly) pointed out that "For all that Dumbledore whitters on about how choices define us, you'll notice that he never offers any to Harry." However, Dumbledore really isn't in a position to offer Harry a whole lot of choices. He has a war to win, and Harry is his only (reluctant) hope. But this doesn't make his oft-quoted statement any less true. "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we really are, far more than our abilities." (U.S. CofS p. 333) Okay, there are two kinds of choices we can make. One is big choices, like where to go to college, whom to marry, etc. But the more far-reaching choices (and the ones I believe DD is talking about) are the little ones. For example: My alarm clock rang at 6:00 this morning and I had a difficult dilemma: should I get up and go jogging, as per my new year's resolution or should I stay in bed for another half an hour? If I exert some mind-over-mattress, I'll get up and breathe some (very cold) fresh air, and feel refreshed after my run. If I doze for another 30 minutes, I'll feel just as drowsy as I did when the alarm clock rang. Worse yet, I'll have a harder time getting back in the habit tomorrow. Still worse, it's a hit to the psyche, because I've just blown my resolution after only three weeks. I have a point to all this. Let me compare this with some small choices Harry has made that "make or break" him. 1) Sitting in the play park, Harry decides not to go picking a fight with Dudley and company. If he had he would have ended up using magic, and that hearing would have gone much differently. ("Let's see, Mr. Potter, you attacked five unarmed Muggle boys?" He might as well have snapped his wand in half himself) 2) In keeping with their "certain disregard for the rules," the trio goes down to visit Hagrid the night of Buckbeak's execution. They had no idea the diverse consequences this would bring. It led to Harry discovering the turn nature of his godfather. It saved Buckbeak's life. But it also led to Wormtail's escape and Voldemort's eventual return. 3) With his Occlumency lessons (and this is why I gave the long jogging analogy) Harry had a decision to make every night: should I or should I not practice? In the beginning he let some mattress-over-mind happen, and didn't practice. In time this led to generally careless attitude, and he also began to make excuses as to why he shouldn't make an effort. "I don't like Snape." "I want to see what's behind door #1." This is like me getting to the point (and I always do after a few weeks of not getting up to run) that I say, "I like being slightly overweight." "I need the extra sleep." This is typical human behavior, if we don't like or are bad at something, we'll make any excuse as to why we shouldn't do it. In this case, these small choices led to a tragic loss for Harry. There was a flip side, like the night Wormtail escaped, at least the WW was finally alerted to Voldy's return. "Hasn't your experience with the Time-Turner taught you anything, Harry? The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed . . . Professor Trelawny, bless her, is living proof of that . . ." ("Owl Post Again" US p. 426) No, DD doesn't offer Harry a lot of choices, but Harry has many nonetheless. It seems that this counsel was for a man-making rather than a war-winning purpose. DD was giving a malleable twelve-year-old mind some sound advice, but not necessarily meaning he himself intended to follow said advice. *grin* Cheers, JuHu, who remembered another favorite OotP line far too late: " 'Because she'll never be as good as Hagrid,' said Harry firmly, fully aware that he had just experienced an exemplary Care of Magical Creatures lesson and was thoroughly annoyed about it." ("Detention With Delores" US p. 261) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 04:59:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:59:35 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89802 > > Whizbang wrote: > > Please show us in canon any evidence that Lily did a charm. Dying > > to protect Harry left traces of her love on him that was > > protective. But it was Dumbledore who did the charm and it > required > > that Harry call home the place where his mother's blood dwells. > > > Mandy responds: > There is no canon evidence because it a theory that I'm playing with > right now. And until we get the whole story of Godric's Hollow I > doubt I will be able to back it up with anything concrete. Perhaps > not even then. I could very well be completely wrong. > > But for know, my theory come from the idea that there have been many > mothers in the history of the world who have died for their children, > and I'm assuming (always dangerous, I admit) that there have been > many mothers in the WW who have died for their children as well. > However Harry is the first one to receive some kind of `extra > special' protection. Enough to protect him from the AK and we do know > he is the first to survive the AK. > > So Lily did something different in that moment that gave Harry > the power to be the only person to have survived the AK. > > And yes, DD charm seals Lily's protection as long as Harry calls his > home that of a blood relative. I don't in any way dispute DD > contribution to the protection of Harry through the blood of his > mum. I just believe Lily did more than just die. Now Carol: Wasn't there a post or a thread awhile back that distinguished the protection Harry gained by being placed with his blood kin (Dumbledore's charm) from the protection he gained from his mother's love but has now lost because Voldemort shares his blood? I think we're dealing with the same sort of confusion here. Dumbledore's charm has nothing to do with a separate charm that Lily *may* have cast to protect Harry through her own death. I agree with Mandy that love alone is not enough to account for the rebounding of a spell that only Harry, a baby of fifteen months, has ever survived and that we need an alternative or additional explanation (which of course must remain theoretical at this point). I think we need to take into account Lily's ability with charms, which I've discussed in another post, the rune connection, and JKR's hint that we would learn something significant about Harry's mother in Book 7. All of this suggests the possibility that Lily placed some sort of charm on Harry that would protect her if she died first. That also explains her urgent pleas to Voldemort not only to spare Harry but to kill her instead. Yes, any mother would have defended her child, but Lily is offering herself as a target. "Kill me instead! Kill me!" And Voldemort's initial response is to dismiss her as a "silly girl" (not a threat, like James, who confronted him and forced a fight), but he ultimately kills her, too--and in doing so, not only seals his own fate and "marks Harry as his equal," but creates a strange sort of bond between himself and Harry that seems more likely to have resulted from a protective charm than from a rebounding Avada Kedavra curse. So, Mandy, I agree with you, or rather, I think your theory is very plausible. (See my previous post on charms and the Eihwaz rune.) Of course we can't offer conclusive proof for any theory or it would cease to be a theory. But we can find evidence to support the possibility. Those who want facts and absolutes should study math, not literature. Carol, who is quite sure that when we've all read the seventh book and there's nothing left to theorize about, this forum will be reduced to the few members (twelve or so) who care to analyze the completed works and the List Elves will be freed. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 05:06:27 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:06:27 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89803 > > Carol wrote: > > However, it's possible that Lily placed a protective charm on him > that caused the scar to appear when Voldemort tried to AK Harry. I > don't think it was merely her love that protected him. (After all, > Barty Crouch's mother also died for her son, but she didn't save him > from> evil influences--or dementors.) We know from the same scene in > > Ollivander's that Lily's wand was "a nice wand for charm work" just > as James's was "excellent for transfiguration" (SS/PS 82). We know > that the reference to James's wand foreshadowed his ability to > transform into a stag. The reference to Lily's wand is probably > foreshadowing as well. > > No time to proofread this to be sure it's clear, but I think the > > protective charm is perfectly compatible with what we know about the > > scar in relation to LV and the rune and charm references will be > > important in relation to the scar as well. > > > Mandy here: > Thanks Carol. Phew! I was beginning to think I was all alone out > there. ;-) > > She had to have done more than just die. JKR has set her up as this > pro-active, fearless women, powerful at charm work and her protection > over Harry is some kind of a charm. Separate from DD's charm of > protection that seals it at Petunia's. > > We know that scar appears after the attack; just how it got there is > still a mystery. > > Cheers Mandy Exactly. And look more closely at the rune posts that have come up lately. I have a feeling that the scar resembles the Eihwaz ('defense') rune for a very good reason, and that Hermione's particular blunder on her runes O.W.L. is a clue to that significance. Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 05:07:08 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:07:08 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: <009601c3e551$02809a00$0400a8c0@charterpa.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89804 Taryn Kimel wrote: > Neri: do we really need any more death cases of major characters? > Would this advance the plot? Would it make Harry or the reader > realize something they don't understand yet? > > I think JKR killed Cedric and Sirius because (among other reasons) > she wanted us to feel that nobody, even Harry himself, is secure. Now that she put > the fear of JKR into our hearts, does she really have to kill > somebody important? > > Taryn: > Well, she doesn't HAVE to, I guess, but that's called anti- climactic, which is a total killer for a good story. We are expecting people to die because this is a war and it would hardly be an impactful one if no one died. JKR HAS put fear into our hearts, and if she doesn't make good this fear, then we have an anti-climactic storyline. What would be the point of her saying, "Okay, I just want you to know that nobody is safe, not even Harry!" and then at the end of the series saying, "Fooled you! They really are safe. No harm done!"? Would you really want to read that? Neri answers: Well, if you somehow feel that you were promised a juicy death of some character that is dear to you and you were cheated out of it, this is indeed anti-climatic, but for me a near-death experience (and JKR is very good about them) may also be climatic enough. I usually don't measure the intensity of the climax by the number of bodies left on the stage after it. > > Neri: > Note that JKR usually uses magical plot devices twice. IMHO, if there are polls in HPGU about whose going to die > next, then this is a good indication that this specific dramatic > device was exploited. > > Taryn: > But there's a very large difference between her magical plot devices and death. The devices are introduced in one book and then pop up as a surprise the second time around (unless, as you say, one is VERY perceptive). Their second time around, they are usually present for the whole storyling if you can pick out the clues. Death is not. Sure, in book 5 we were all waiting for the one big death, but there weren't exactly solid, factual clues lying about because it wasn't going on throughout the story. The whole point is that death is a sudden, undiscriminating factor that you can't predict will happen. > Neri answers: Actually, this is exactly my point. JKR did milk Sirius' death for all its worth. She notified us before that someone important will die, and then she put the death at the very end, so along the whole book, whenever someone get into a dangerous situation we will scream "nooooo!, not him/her!". JKR does sometime sacrifice good characters in order to get good suspense and a good moral, but she doesn't like it, so she does it sparingly and makes every death count. > Death is unique in its manner of providing motivation for all sorts of things and the fact that us knowing its coming does not lessen its value (IMO, anyway). After all, it's not a magical device JKR has invented and is milking to an extreme. It's a fact of life, ESPECIALLY during wartime, and JKR has been NOTHING if not realistic. Well. Y'know. Barring the whole magic, wizards, and witches thing. You know what I mean. ;) Neri answers: I see what you mean about the realistic part. If we are talking realistically, however, I can ensure you that the chances of getting killed in a "low-intensity" war (as someone who actually participated in such a war I dislike this term, but the wizards war certainly qualifies as such) are actually not higher than getting killed in a car accident. But I don't think the books need to be realistic in this. > > Then again, I've ALWAYS loved death in literature. I'm a total sucker for it. Makes me bawl (when done right), but Iove a good tragedy. > Neri again: Well, I can see what you mean when thinking about the climax of Hamlet or Othello, but there is a good moral to these climaxes. If the moral is only that death is arbitrary, I think we (and Harry) already got that point. And besides, I doubt "Harry Potter" is a tragedy. > > Neri: > OK, I do seem to remember that JKR said in some interview that there > will be many people dying. But I think this was before GoF, wasn't > it? > > Taryn: > No, that interview was post-GoF. You can take a look here: > > > December 28, 2001. She talks about "...deaths, more deaths coming..." and refers to the infamous "at least one death that's going to be horrible to write," the obvious reference to Sirius. (And note the "at least," too.) Neri again: I stand corrected. But if she actually didn't say "many", then Sirius and a couple of secondary characters will qualify. Hopefully. Neri From kking0731 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 23:25:12 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:25:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89805 Siriusly Snapey Susan: Sigune, the point I'm addressing isn't your main point, but I still think it's worth asking about. Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate about the dark arts? Isn't one of the things we readers are often cautioned about concerning JKR is that we should question statements of "fact" made by CHARACTERS? I know Percy first told Harry that Snape wants the DADA post, and other students have said it, too, saying something like "everyone knows" that he fancies the position. But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he truly wants the position? I am just wondering whether "passionate about" the dark arts might be going a little too far, for what we know of Severus. Please fire away if I'm way off and there is concrete evidence in canon! Kathy: Actually there is canon proof when Umbridge asked Snape about it when she observed his class: OoP pg. 363, 364 Umbridge says "You applied first for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?" Snape answers yes. Then Umbridge says "You've applied regularly for the DaDa post since you first joined the school, I believe? Snape answers yes again. Then Umbridge asks "Do you gave any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?" Snape replies "I suggest you ask him." Hope this is helpful Kathy From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 02:17:12 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:17:12 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89806 Neri said > OK, I do seem to remember that JKR said in some interview that there > will be many people dying. But I think this was before GoF, wasn't > it? Well, since then we did have Frank Brice, Bertha, Crouch Sr., > Crouch Jr., Cedric, Bode and Sirius (sorry if I forgot anybody). A > respectable number for what *is* a children book. And don't get me > wrong, I'm sure there will be many more secondary characters dying. > This is a war, after all. But my hunch is that by the end of book 7 > all the major characters (except maybe DD) will be left standing, if > a bit battered. My I draw your thoughts, to a famous childrens book, written many years ago, in a less free society. This book, as it happens, is named The Hobbit. There is tons of killing in that book, villagers, spiders, and main character dwarves. Is it impossible that JKR may kill of main charactars, no. Andrew From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 05:21:36 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:21:36 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" wrote: > > > Carol: > Sirius's statement that young > > Severus was "up to his eyes in the dark arts" was not quite true, > > unless you count his coming to Hogwarts at age eleven knowing more > > hexes than most sixth years. The Dark Arts are not taught at > Hogwarts, > > so what he was up to his eyes in (quite literally in the Pensieve > > scene where he has his nose pressed to the parchment and is writing > > extremely long and detailed answers in a small hand) is DADA. > > > Erin: > > Just because something isn't taught at school doesn't mean that a > student cannot be deeply involved in it. Suppose there was a > student who was taking a computer programming class, was making > straight A's in it, and then someone told your that he was "up to his > eyeballs in hacking" Would you protest that since his class didn't > teach you how to be a hacker, he couldn't be one? That what he had > to be "up to his eyeballs in" was simple programming? > > Students have interests outside of class, you know. > > --Erin I'm not denying the possibility that he might have been exposed to the Dark Arts at home (that father of his seems like a Dark Wizard if there ever was one). I'm only saying that the evidence we have (notably that O.W.L. exam) points directly to an interest in DADA and only indirectly to an interest in the Dark Arts per se. But the question is, how would Sirius know about Severus's interest in the Dark Arts if, as I believe, they were in separate Houses? And can we trust Sirius's assessment of someone he has hated since they were both boys? (For the record, I *do* think young Severus was interested in the Dark Arts and that's what led him to join the DEs, but you snipped that part of my post.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 03:50:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:50:15 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans again (Was: Crazy thought......) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89808 Whizbang: Oops! ;) Lost in the translation. The original premise was that Mark Evans is actually Lily and Petunia's father who has manipulated time and shown up to help Harry. Whizbang > > > > Carol: > > A theory which I had rejected. :-) See my "slight problem" comment > > above. I happen to think that Mark Evans is a distant relative of > > Harry's who will show up as a Muggle-born wizard at Hogwarts in > Book > > 6. As for Voldemort somehow harming Petunia's family, I agree that > > that's probable. But the whole "Mark Evans is Harry's grandfather" > > idea can't work because Harry's maternal grandfather was a Muggle. > > Clear now, I hope? > > Whizbang: > > Then you consider Dumbledore untruthful? And we don't know, yet, if > Mark is a wizard. It seems a reasonable guess but ....... > > And while we're questioning Dumbledore's truthfulness or > knowledgableness, maybe we should question if the Evanses were in > fact Muggles, and whether Mr Evans was even Lily's father. So many > unanswered questions. > > - Whizbang, who finds these forums hopelessly difficult to discuss > anything on. Carol: I hope it's the format of the forums and not me (or us) that makes them difficult for you. :-) To answer your question, I'm not one of the people who considers Dumbledore evil or devious, but he does withhold information and (like JKR herself), he can be very evasive. As for knowledge, I don't think he would know about Mark Evans because he's too young to be at Hogwarts and Dumbledore would have no reason to go looking for his name in the book that records the birth of magical children before he turns eleven and is ready to receive his letter. Mark's parents (or guardians) must be Muggles or the MoM would have known about them. As for Lily's and Petunia's parents, also Evanses, I would question their being Muggles except for the many times that JKR has said that Lily is a Muggle-born and that Petunia is a Muggle. The statement that Petunia is a Muggle has been made in every book and not just from Harry's point of view, which would make it subject to doubt (like the supposed car accident), and she has made the same point in an interview which I've already quoted in several previous posts. The relationship between Harry and Mark is just a theory, which I base on Mark's last name and age, the revelation of his mother's last name in the same book, and Harry's expressed wish for family. If I'm right, Dumbledore, who is not omniscient, is not lying to Harry. He's simply unaware of the existence of this interesting little distant cousin, who till now has been hidden in the Muggle world. I guess that you and I agree on one point, and that's the probable importance of Mark Evans in the next book. Carol, who hopes you'll go back and read previous threads on the topic if you're really interested. I don't want to repeat them here. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 05:54:00 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:54:00 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89809 Andrew wrote: > > My I draw your thoughts, to a famous childrens book, written many > years ago, in a less free society. This book, as it happens, is > named The Hobbit. There is tons of killing in that book, villagers, > spiders, and main character dwarves. Is it impossible that JKR may > kill of main charactars, no. > > Andrew Neri answers: I read The Hobit the last time several years ago, so my memory might not be accurate, but I remember the death of only one major character, at the very end and with a good moral. So I'd say that by the Hobbit's standard JKR already filled her blood quota. A more relevant example may be LOTR, with a full-scale war and a very high body count. I can recall the death of only one major character in LOTR (Boromir, of course. Theoden was hardly a major character in the book, as opposed to the movies), and again with a very good moral. But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more major characters. I merely asked: what for? Neri From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Wed Jan 28 06:21:23 2004 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:21:23 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" wrote: > >--JDR > >I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact > >and the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. > > Mandy here: > > Could JKR kill and/or maim another mother in the series? It would be > awful. > > After all we already have: > Harry's mum murdered > Neville's tortured > Tom Riddle's dead in childbirth agony > Sirius' mother dead and her memory portrait seriously deranged. > Don't forget Barty Crouch Jr's mother, deathly ill, impersonating him in prison till her death, Luna's mother, who died in a botched experiment when Luna was nine, or Hagrid's mother, who died a few years back under unknown circumstances. That's 7 so far, making dead and maimed mothers enough of a theme that one really does have to wonder what Molly's chances are... --Arcum From erinellii at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 07:02:08 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:02:08 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89811 Carol: > I'm not denying the possibility that he might have been exposed to the Dark Arts at home (that father of his seems like a Dark Wizard if > there ever was one). Erin: But not just at home! There's a whole library at Hogwarts, isn't there? You're probably thinking all the Dark Arts stuff is kept in the restricted section, but it may not have been. And even if it were, there would be ways around that. Not to mention all the older Slytherins who joined the DE's (such as Lucius Malfoy) were around and probably taught Snape a thing or two. Or, heck, he could have had a pen- er, quill- pal from Durmstrang, where they actually do teach the Dark Arts. As for Snape's father, well, if we go by the definition that shouting at your wife makes you evil, I know an awful lot of evil people! Carol I'm only saying that the evidence we have > (notably that O.W.L. exam) points directly to an interest in DADA and only indirectly to an interest in the Dark Arts per se. Erin: I take it you mean objective evidence, and you don't count Sirius' words as evidence. But... there's also the evidence that Snape joined the DE's. That didn't just spring out of nowhere. If he had not really wanted to, he wouldn't have gotten far enough in to get an actual dark mark like he had. Carol: But the question is, how would Sirius know about Severus's interest in the Dark Arts if, as I believe, they were in separate Houses? And can we trust Sirius's assessment of someone he has hated since they were both > boys? Erin: Not everyone believes that they *were* in different Houses. They could have both been in Slytherin. I admit that I also think it unlikely, but it is not ruled out by canon. If they were in separate Houses, though.... Well, just because we don't see the trio mingling too much with other Houses doesn't mean that's the way everyone is. We have seen canon examples of inter- house dating and such. Sirius's brother who became a DE was probably in Slytherin, wouldn't you think? I believe Harry is really a pretty extreme example of no contact with the other houses (or even other students in his own house, for that matter) Other people are more social, and I think that if you went to the same school with someone for seven years, you'd get to know something about them. I think you're just not giving people enough credit. Students can't learn outside class, different Houses have to be ignorant about each other? No, that's just not the way life is. People are curious animals. They have ways of finding things out. And then of course there's the fact that they *were* enemies. Who better for Snape to use some of those Dark arts on than James and Sirius? They probably got a first-hand dose on several occasions. Okay, I know you'll probably protest that that would be illegal or something, but some of it may not be. The fact that there are only three Unforgivable curses, as well as the DAs being taught as a subject at Durmstrang suggests to me that there are many DA curses that are not so unforgivable. And since dueling at all is against the rules, why shouldn't Snape bend them a little further? I'm wondering about that curse that slashed James across the cheek. It wasn't exactly a light and fluffy one, was it? As for not trusting Sirius, I see your point, but I don't believe he would lie to Harry about his father. Not to mention that lupin was sitting right there and could have contradicted Sirius at any time had he offered wrong information. And I *do* trust Lupin. Carol: > (For the record, I *do* think young Severus was interested in the Dark Arts and that's what led him to join the DEs, but you snipped that part of my post.) Erin: I snipped it because it wasn't the part I was replying to. Sorry if it offended you. I read it and understood that that was your personal feeling, but you were arguing in the above paragragh that there wasn't much evidence for it, and that was the section that I wanted to try and refute. I try to quote only the relevent parts of posts so that people who have been reading a thread don't have to read the same thing twenty zillion times. Erin From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 28 07:48:33 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:48:33 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans Mark Equal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katrina" wrote: > Katrina: > Whenever I (re)read the prophecy, the use of the word, "mark" > reminds me of the phrase, "marked man." In that sense, Harry > was "marked" even before LV arrived in Godric's Hollow. He > was "marked" as soon as LV turned his attention to him. > > To quote the Cambridge Dictionary of Idioms: > [A marked man/woman is] someone who is being watched by someone who > wants to harm or kill them. > > Sounds like our Harry to me. Geoff: Harry realises this himself. One of the interesting bits of OOTP is when he's finished hitting the roof after the MoM fight and after the news of Voldemort's return has become public. "Perhaps the reason he wanted to be alone was because he had felt isolated from everybody since his talk with Dumbledore. An invisible barrier separated him from the rest of the world. He was - he had always been - a marked man. It was just that he had never understood what that meant..." (OOTP "The Second War Begins" p.755 UK edition) I have always found that section where Harry goes down to the lake on his own particularly poignant. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 28 09:38:09 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:38:09 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89813 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > As for this-- > > > Sigune- who hopes Severus Snape will replace Phineas Nigellus as > > the most unpopular Hogwarts Headmaster in history :) > > --well, that's interesting! I honestly never even contemplated Snape > as headmaster, probably because I'm afraid he's toast before the > series is through. > Sigune shrieks [sorry for that, it's touching a nerve]: If Snape is 'toast' before the series is through (I'm not a native speaker; never heard that expression but it's wonderful), I will find it hard to read till the end - I can't help it but he is simply my favourite character... Though that is probably just another pointer: I tend to pick characters who end up dead :(. But, I mean, JKR can't kill him, can she - he is so NASTY... - In fact I used to think nobody likes him, which would make him safe - the death of a character no-one likes wouldn't be very useful or dramatic in a story. But since I have taken to stalking the Net, its fanfics and discussion boards, it seems my theory is leaky to say the least: there are lots of people who like Snape somehow... Still, he would make a horrid Headmaster, so that would be nicely ironic. I think. Yours severely, Sigune From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jan 28 09:42:17 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:42:17 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? (and wizard aristocracy in general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89814 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Sigune reflects: > > I dunno - he doesn't particularly strike me as the aristocratic type; > > I am not sure if I can explain why not. But even if you are quite > > right to point out that aristocratic roots don't equal "good form", I > > feel bound to say that likewise, arrogance and hauteur do not > > preclude aristocracy. > > > > Somehow, I have come to think of Snape as a 'self-made man', which > > one could argue is a quintessentially middle-class concept. He is > > ambitious and hard-working. Also, judging from what we saw in the > > Occlumency lessons, he seems to have sort of reinvented himself at > > one point inbetween his schooldays and the arrival of Harry at > > Hogwarts. - As you point out, he has gained confidence. > > [*Question*: is there any canon evidence of his using swearwords > > other than in the scenes from his memory?] > > > > I don't know how this sounds to other people, but it seems to me that > > Snape's arrogance is connected with the quality of his thinking as > > Hermione signalled in PS: unlike many wizards, Snape thinks > > logically. His arrogance stems from his impatience with people who > > make errors of logic because they don't think rationally enough (to > > his taste). > > > > It also struck me that Sirius called Snape 'Lucius Malfoy's lapdog'. > > Even when he meant it as a provocation, I get the impression > > throughout the books that Lucius Malfoy thinks of Snape as an ally or > > supporter, but in a patronising sort of way - Malfoy is the one with > > the power to make things happen and by no means regards Snape as an > > equal, which I think he would be more likely to do if Snape were on > > an equal footing with him socially. June: That may be true but there is no canon evidence of Lucius being patronising to Snape. Draco sucks up to Snape in a way that implies he at least, does not "look down" on Snape socially. > > > > I entirely agree with your view of him as someone who tries hard to > > better himself in the sense that he wants to make up for an > > impoverished family background. His pride and confidence at present > > may be related to a sense of achievement of sorts then. But I am not > > sure that this precludes an aristocratic family. Yet again, I have no > > definite proof, and this may be a piece of "Snape-as-I-would-like- him- > > to-turn-out-to-be" :). > > > > Yours severely, > > > > Sigune > > > Just to clarify your argument, do you mean doesn't "imply" an > aristocratic family? "Preclude" means exclude or prevent the existence > of, which I think is the opposite of your intended meaning. (I think I > essentially agree with you, but I'm not quite sure.) > > Thanks, > Carol > > P.S. On the subject of "aristocratic" wizards, I get the feeling that > the Muggle-born Justin Finch-Fletchley comes from the *Muggle* > aristocracy or gentry based on his name. I'm wondering if Sir Nicholas > de Mimsey-Porpington's aristocratic background is a Muggle heritage as > well, especially as he was the only ghost to be petrified in CoS. Was > he Muggle-born like the petrified students? And totally off the > subject, the 400 vs. 500 year discrepancy regarding Sir Nick's death > date can be resolved by his clothing. No one wore ruffs in 1492. They > were a sixteenth- (and possibly early seventeenth-) century fashion. > Consequently his death date must be 1592, not 1492 (400, not 500, > years before CoS). Justin may well be smart (that means upper class here) - he was down for Eton after all. However, having one's name down for Eton does not necessarily denote coming from the "top drawer" socially anymore, because money now talks and there aren't necessarily enough old moneyed British aristos to keep the place going. As to double barrelled names conferring aristo status - don't believe it. Anyone can double barrell their name these days, and frequently do. Justin's family might well be a bunch of nouveau parvenues who made their money from, gasp, trade. June From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 28 09:55:24 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:55:24 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? (and wizard aristocracy in general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89815 Sigune reflected: << I dunno - he doesn't particularly strike me as the aristocratic type; I am not sure if I can explain why not. But even if you are quite right to point out that aristocratic roots don't equal "good form", I feel bound to say that likewise, arrogance and hauteur do not preclude aristocracy.>> Carol asked: << Just to clarify your argument, do you mean doesn't "imply" an aristocratic family? "Preclude" means exclude or prevent the existence of, which I think is the opposite of your intended meaning. (I think I essentially agree with you, but I'm not quite sure.)>> Sigune blushes: Erm - yes, I'm giving myself away here as a non-native speaker... But yes, I do mean "imply". I like your remark about the aristocracy bit and Sir Nick. It struck me only yesterday that even Lucius Malfoy, who to my mind (and others', I guess) seems to represent a kind of wizard aristocracy, hasn't got a title of any kind. In fact, we have only met one 'Lord' and that is good old Voldemort, who doesn't strictly speaking have a right to the title, seeing he is actually 'plain' Tom Marvolo Riddle. On the other hand, I suppose a wizard born to Muggle aristocrats would make, well, an aristocratic wizard (sorry if this sounds dumb). Do we in fact know that the titled ghosts like Sir Nicholas were wizards when alive? Yours severely, Sigune From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Jan 28 11:22:38 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:22:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Harry See Lily Die? (Was: Neville's Role) References: Message-ID: <003301c3e591$09cdb280$5902a8c0@Belkin> No: HPFGUIDX 89816 > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > Debbie, a question for clarification, if I might. What do you mean > when you write that Harry didn't SEE his mother's death? Harry was > 15 months old, and at that age he definitely could have seen the > whole thing. His memory might not be able to hang on to much of the > experience, but I believe he saw it alright. Or are you saying that > Lily blocked his vision? [If that's the case, I'd still argue that > he *saw* what happened.] Or am I misunderstanding altogether? > No, I believe that Harry saw nothing of Lily's murder, for a couple of reasons. First, if Harry had seen Lily die, he should have seen the thestrals his first year at Hogwarts. JKR has said that some time is needed to *process* a death before the thestrals become visible. I have no idea what she means by that, since Harry's anger in OOP suggest to me that while he certainly remembers what happened in the graveyard, he has yet to fully process it. So I don't think it makes sense to argue that he hasn't processed Lily's death, or that he doesn't remember it. He does have memories of it (at least from PoA onward), even if they are buried rather deeply. The second reason is that the memories that the Dementors bring to the surface are only audio memories. Harry tells Lupin that he can *hear* Voldemort murdering Lily. There are no visuals to go with it, although he does have visual memories of his own encounter with Voldemort, which are described in ch. 2 of PS/SS. While there is more than one possible explanation of this, one is that Harry simply didn't see the murder. Maybe it was dark. Maybe she had gone out of the room to head off Voldemort. Either way, I don't think Harry saw either the murder or a dead body. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 28 11:57:34 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:57:34 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Yes, but /why/ did he want to get into the Chamber of Secrets? > > "'I thought someone must realise that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the > heir of Slytherin. It had taken /me/ five whole years to find out > everything I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the > secret entrance....'" > > So he'd been digging around since his First Year ot thereabouts. > Sounds a very dedicated investigator... > Kneasy: Why was Tom so interested in the CoS? For the same reason that the students in Harry's year are absolutely fascinated by the thought of it. A legend come to life! Wow! Tell us more! Where is it? Note that the legend states that the Chamber can only be opened by the Heir. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy - if you can get in, you must by definition be the Heir. There is the possibility that opening the Chamber turns you into the Heir, that whoever gets there first is transformed into Salazar's avatar. A trap for the unwary or the unsuspecting and ambitious. I suspect that Tom Riddle took on the Lord Voldemort identity as the result of entering the CoS, that what was in the Chamber changed him into what he became. It is, after all, called the Chamber of Secrets - plural. All we have seen so far is a single secret monster. What else is or was there? In which case, we have to ask ourselves are Tom's actions of his own volition or is he suffering from some sort of possession? Is this why DD insists on calling him Tom to his face as an appeal to a suppressed personality? There is even the faint possibility that 'the gleam' in DD's eyes may be because Voldy has taken blood that gave Harry protection and that may have a booster effect on the suppressed Riddle personality. This leads to an entertaining line of thought based on pure speculation. The 'spirit' of Salazar possesses Tom whose body is destroyed at Godrics Hollow. What is left is a disembodied something. The same sort of thing happens in the CoS, only with Quirrell. The force that is Voldy does not retain any physical bits and pieces during transfer, but intangible aspects of personality or character may survive. If so, DD is trying to induce a form of schizophrenia by invoking a conflict between the Salazar entity and the Riddle remains. If it works, self destruction may ensue. Crazy idea? Geoff: snip of quote from Voldy re Godrics Hollow > There you go; straight from the horse's mouth. > Kneasy: Mandy (89798) highlights many of the points I would make about the GH episode. What happened is not clear; what we know is some of the pre-amble and assumptions about the outcome. The actual step-by-step action is a mystery, in particular what happened with James. Somewhere in canon (and I can't find it, damn!) I seem to recall that someone expresses surprise that James' 'ghost' appears in the graveyard scene. If my memory is accurate, why the surprise? And I repeat, how come DD claims to know so much about it when he wasn't there and has not produced any witness to the events? >> Kneasy: >> Later events are also open to reinterpretation; Quirrell died >> through the actions of Harry, > > > Geoff: > Ah, let's go back to the horse's mouth... > > "'A wizard - young, foolish and gullible - wandered across my path in > the forest I had made my home. Oh, he seemed the very chance I had > been dreaming of... for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school.... > he was easy to bend to my will... he brought me back to this country > and after a while, I took possession of his body, to supervise him > closely as he carried out my orders. but my plan failed. I did not > manage to steal the Philosopher's Stone. I was not to be assured > immortal life. I was thwarted... thwarted, once again, by Harry > Potter.'........ > > 'The servant died when I left his body and I was left as weak as I > had ever been...'" > Hmm. Self-confessed by the big V himself methinks. Kneasy: But why did he leave the body? He was a happy little parasite until Harry ruined Quirrell's complexion. He was forced out IMO, as the result of Harry's actions - therefore ensuring Quirrell's demise. Voldy would have needed corporate form to do what was necessary with the Stone. Harry stymied this by making Quirrell a hostile habitat for Voldy. When you leave someone with only one option, the consequences are your responsibility, not theirs. From erinellii at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 07:35:06 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:35:06 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89818 "lizvega2" wrote: > Can anyone else think of someone who may have may have been placed > at Hogwarts for their own protection? > > McGonagall? Sprout? Pomfrey? Vector? Filch? Erin: Ooh! ooh! *raises hand* McGonagall. She was at school with Riddle, right? Well, anyway, according to an interview where JKR said she was arouund 70, which is about the same age as Voldy. And we also have Diary!Tom's word that he was always able to charm those he needed. Based on these two facts, there have been speculations of an Evil! McGonagall. It's not what I believe, but see it here if you like: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 However, suppose there was indeed a relationship between McGonagall and Voldy. But not an Evil!McGonagall, a McGonagall who was taken in by Riddle's good looks and charm. And, because this is a book for children, Rowling is NOT going to come right out and say that they were "lovers". That's never gonna happen. No she will either have to say that they had "dated" (which, IMO, would not convey the seriousness of the relationship properly) OR that they were... married. That's right, I think it possible that McGonagall was married to Voldemort, and furthermore, that she still is. Picture it... Riddle reveals his evil overlord plans to his new bride, a young and innocent McGonagall. She is horrified, tells him to "get out!" and he does. In fact, he leaves that very day to go on his journey around the world, learning more and more secrets of the dark arts and ways to conquer death. He's gone for years, and McGonagall wants to divorce him, but is unable to find him (and anyway, divorce is not *done* nearly so often in those days), so she goes back to her maiden name and tries to forget him. She pours herself into her teaching. When Voldy does surface again, he has a new name and is unrecognizably altered in appearence. He doesn't contact McGonagall, and she has no idea who he is. By the time she realizes Voldemort and her husband are one and the same, he is already Public Enemy #1, and she is terrified to reveal her connection to him. This also explains why so few people know who Voldemort once was. Dumbledore figured it out, and he is protecting Minerva by keeping silent, and keeping her at Hogwarts. So... whadd'ya think? --Erin From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 03:56:26 2004 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:56:26 -0000 Subject: Narrative style and POV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89819 Carol said Instead she's chosen a limited omniscient narrator who usually but not always tells the story from Harry's perspective. Occasionally she chooses another POV character--or none at all. In at least three instances that I mentioned in my previous post, she reports events that Harry is unaware of from an outside perspective, which could arguably be either third-person omniscient or third- person dramatic.\ Whenever these parts happen in the story doesn't it end up that Harry is dreaming about them? So technically wouldn't it still be from Harry's point of view, but a dream at that. Andrew From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 01:52:29 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:52:29 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > Carol wrote: > However, it's possible that Lily placed a protective charm on him > that caused the scar to appear when Voldemort tried to AK Harry. I > don't think it was merely her love that protected him. (After all, > Barty Crouch's mother also died for her son, but she didn't save > him from evil influences--or dementors.) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Whizbang here: Barty Crouch Jr.'s mother died of an illness. Good planning got junior out of Azkaban and substitued Mrs Crouch, but it's not quite the same thing. Beyond that, Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. To compare him to any other mother's son in this situation is again, apples and oranges. And while I concede that our information concerning the lack of a countercurse for the AK came from fake Moody, ie Crouch Jr, still if there was a countercurse, I'm sure everyone would know it. Molly would be practicing it on a shooting range. If there is a countercurse, it seems odd that Lily would be the only one who knew it. It seems like Harry's being "the one with the power" is what backfired Voldemort's AK. -Whizbang, who is relatively certain she's doing this all wrong. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Carol wrote: > We know from the same scene in Ollivander's that Lily's wand > was "a nice wand for charm work" just as James's was "excellent > for transfiguration" (SS/PS 82). We know that the reference to > James's wand foreshadowed his ability to transform into a stag. > The reference to Lily's wand is probably foreshadowing as well. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Whizbang here: It could just as easily refer to Lily's contributions to defying the Dark Lord three times, which we know she and James did, as to any charm she may have put on Harry, for which there is no evidence. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Carol wrote: > The runes that have been discussed here lately are probably > important, too--not because of the appearance of Harry's scar in > the films or the illustrations in the books, but because of > Hermione's (and Luna's) interest in runes. One of them is bound to > notice that Harry's lightning-shaped scar resembles the Eihwas > rune, which Hermione confused with Ehwaz on her O.W.L.s: "I > mistranslated 'ehwaz'," said Hermione furiously. It means > 'partnership,' not 'defense.' I mixed it up with 'eihwaz.'" (OoP > 715, Am. ed.). So if eihwaz (defense or protection is indeed > lightning-shaped, the scar could be a form of protection for Harry- > -as well as the mark that Voldemort placed on him ("marked him as > his equal"). > > Carol = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Whizbang here: Well explained. We used the movie and book covers in an attempt to identify the rune that scars Harry's forehead. It's a matter of interpretation, especially as there isn't really any consistency in illustrations, but as near as we could figure, we thought it looked like the sowelo. That said .......... ? -Whizbang From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 14:14:16 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:14:16 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89821 > Kneasy: > Mandy (89798) highlights many of the points I would make about > the GH episode. What happened is not clear; what we know is some > of the pre-amble and assumptions about the outcome. The actual > step-by-step action is a mystery, in particular what happened with > James. Somewhere in canon (and I can't find it, damn!) I seem to > recall that someone expresses surprise that James' 'ghost' appears > in the graveyard scene. If my memory is accurate, why the surprise? > And I repeat, how come DD claims to know so much about it when > he wasn't there and has not produced any witness to the events? Ginger: Not to put words into your mouth, but that to which you may (or may not) be referring could possibly be Lupin's expression of surprise that Harry heard James: PoA US paperback, p.240-1 "I heard my dad," Harry mumbled. (Harry pretends to tie his shoe) "You heard James?" said Lupin in a strange voice. (On to limited discussion about Lupin knowing James.....) There has been discussion on the list about whether or not Lupin was surprised at this. I believe is spawned the "Lupin is James" theory. Of course, this may not be what you meant at all, in which case, disregard and continue reading. Ginger, who has about 1 1/2 feet of snow in her driveway for Nora if she wants it-yours free for the shoveling! ;) From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 28 14:57:45 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:57:45 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > Why was Tom so interested in the CoS? For the same reason that > the students in Harry's year are absolutely fascinated by the thought > of it. A legend come to life! Wow! Tell us more! Where is it? Geoff: They are absolutely fascinated because they have heard the story because the Chamber has apparently been opened. Prior to this, they know nothing. This begs the question as to whether the story was common knowledge in Riddle's day. Or whether perhaps, because IIRC that his mother was a direct descendant of Slytherin, he had heard of the CHambmer. Kneasy: > >> Later events are also open to reinterpretation; Quirrell died > >> through the actions of Harry, > > > > > > Geoff: > > 'The servant died when I left his body and I was left as weak as I > > had ever been...'" > > Hmm. Self-confessed by the big V himself methinks. > > Kneasy: > But why did he leave the body? He was a happy little parasite until > Harry ruined Quirrell's complexion. He was forced out IMO, as the > result of Harry's actions - therefore ensuring Quirrell's demise. > Voldy would have needed corporate form to do what was necessary > with the Stone. Harry stymied this by making Quirrell a hostile habitat > for Voldy. When you leave someone with only one option, the > consequences are your responsibility, not theirs. Geoff: I don't think he was responsible for Quirrell's exit. Harry grabbed his face and, realising that he needed to keep him in pain to stop any cursing, almost immmediately let go and clung on to his arm. I tend to disbelieve that briefly blistering Q's face and then damaging his arm was sufficient to disable him to make Voldemort abandon him. More likely that Quirrell's cover was now blown; he would obviously be dealt with in some way by those who rescued Harry and make him useless as a vehicle for Voldemort. From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 28 15:28:47 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:28:47 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89823 > > Mandy here: > > Could JKR kill and/or maim another mother in the series? It would > be awful. > > After all we already have: > > Harry's mum murdered > > Neville's tortured > > Tom Riddle's dead in childbirth agony > > Sirius' mother dead and her memory portrait seriously deranged. > --Arcum wrote: > Don't forget Barty Crouch Jr's mother, deathly ill, impersonating him > in prison till her death, Luna's mother, who died in a botched > experiment when Luna was nine, or Hagrid's mother, who died a > few years back under unknown circumstances. That's 7 so far, > making dead and maimed mothers enough of a theme that one > really does have to wonder what Molly's chances are... Mandy again: Yes. How could I forget Hagrid, Luna and Crouch Jr.'s mothers!? There's also Snape's mum. We don't know if she is alive or dead, but we do have the impression she was treated badly by his dad. What about Petunia and Lily's mum, Harry grandma? Who else thinks it odd that Petunia never mentions her to Harry? (Or Harry to her?) She never visits, so does that mean she's she dead? And, it seems, that Petunia doesn't have any pictures of her around the house? We don't know that for sure, but surly if there was a picture around it would have stimulated an inquiry by Harry at some point? The outlook for any mum is the series is bleak, to say the least. Cheers Mandy From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 15:35:26 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:35:26 -0000 Subject: Bode and Devil's Snare Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89824 Did we ever find out who sent Devil's Snare to Bode? I searched the archives but I could not find any info. Also, I am looking through the ending chapters of OOP to see if if was mentioned but so far I can not find anything. I do have a theory that it was MacNair just because he also sent a Hippogriff calendar, but I am wondering if it was ever clarified? Diana From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jan 28 15:40:17 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:40:17 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89825 I, Ali wrote: >>> Whenever I have read OoP, I have always assumed that the DADA is made up of two parts, the written exam and the practical exam. However, Galadriel Waters states that the "Written exam for a class is worth one OWL;and the pratical exam is worth one OWL; so, each subject is worth two OWLS" p. 109. Now, it is possible that this is how they're calculated, but it seems unlikely. The subjects I've multiplied are the subjects which seem to have 2 separate parts. That would mean Harry could theoretically achieve > 15 O.W.L.s, 3 more than both Bill and Barty Crouch Junior.>>> Meri responded: << normal schedule of exams and classes, then 12 for 13 is excellent. >>> Ali again, Erm, I've used your way of counting from your list, and I still reach 18, with Harry being able to do 15. I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but I am saying I think it's unlikely and that I'm not aware of any evidence for this. If each separate exam was worth an individual O.W.L.,then it would mean that some subjects would count double compared to others. Admittedly, it tends to be the compulsory subjects which have the practical paper and therefore you could argue that this has been designed to weight the subjects according to their importance, but again, there is no evidence to support this. I still believe that the written and the practical exam contribute to the final O.W.L. grade for each subject, and Waters did dress up an assumption as a fact. Ali From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 15:50:31 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:50:31 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89826 > Erin: > Ooh! ooh! *raises hand* > > McGonagall. She was at school with Riddle, right? Well, anyway, > according to an interview where JKR said she was arouund 70, which is > about the same age as Voldy. That's right, I think it possible that McGonagall was married to > Voldemort, and furthermore, that she still is. > Julie: Sounds like interesting FanFic and a hypothesis. I'd still wait on canon evidence, which would not be until Books 6 or 7. I do agree with the firt hypothesis that people other than Harry are placed at Hogwarts for protection. I wonder if other things, such as the philosopher's stone, is at Hogwarts. Just what is up with the astronomy tower anyway? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 28 16:29:46 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:29:46 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Not to put words into your mouth, but that to which you may (or may > not) be referring could possibly be Lupin's expression of surprise > that Harry heard James: > > PoA US paperback, p.240-1 > "I heard my dad," Harry mumbled. > (Harry pretends to tie his shoe) > "You heard James?" said Lupin in a strange voice. > (On to limited discussion about Lupin knowing James.....) > > There has been discussion on the list about whether or not Lupin was > surprised at this. I believe is spawned the "Lupin is James" theory. > Yeah. Thanks. That's most probably what I was trying to remember. Not post-graveyard at all, but still a possible hint that there was something unexpected about Harry seeing James' image. Not exactly easy to determine a lot from just "in a strange voice", but entire edifices of theory have been built on less. Whatever, I'm not happy with the lack of detail regarding the GH event and I like it even less when DD is the sole uncorroborated source. It makes me twitchy. How the hell is he so certain as to what happened? Who told him? Kneasy From rredordead at aol.com Wed Jan 28 16:11:33 2004 From: rredordead at aol.com (ghinghapuss) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:11:33 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89828 > Whizbang wrote: > > Beyond that, if there was a countercurse, I'm sure > everyone would know it. Molly would be practicing it on a shooting > range. If there is a countercurse, it seems odd that Lily would be > the only one who knew it. > It seems like Harry's being "the one with the power" is what > backfired Voldemort's AK. Mandy here: Hello again. There is no counter curse as Crouch Jr./Mad Eye says so in GoF. "...and there is no counter curse. There is no blocking it. Only one person is known to have survived it, and he is sitting right in front of me." Page 216, Gof American Ed. (I love that whole scene. Especially reading it once you know that Moody is really Crouch Jr. It's delightfully sadistic.) What Lily used was some really old and virtually forgotten magic. LV speaks of it as being 'old magic' on page 653, GoF American Ed. And we do have a precedent of some types of magic being almost forgotten or pushed aside. Snape speaks of Occulmency as "an obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one." OotP page 519, American Ed. So there are spells out there that are so ancient that the general WW populous no longer use. One would think however, that something as useful as a defense of the AK would not be forgotten, so I'm inclined to think that whatever it was that Lily used, it was not considered an AK defense spell. It was `something else' that combined with he power of the AK, turned into yet another `something else' entirely. Yes, Harry is definitely the only one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, and that could be what backfired the AK. But I don't think it is what prevented his death, that was aided by Lily. Cheers Mandy. From lfreeman at mbc.edu Wed Jan 28 14:39:55 2004 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:39:55 -0500 Subject: Snape and DADA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89829 I think that one thing that will need to be explained in future books is why Snape was not given the DADA job at the beginning of OotP, when the Educational Decree was passed giving the ministry power to appoint a teacher *if* Dumbledore could not fill the post. He says he trusts Snape. Snape had substituted for Lupin in the class back in PoA. Snape wants the job. Dumbledore could therefore have stopped Umbridge from being appointed with one stroke of his quill. Why didn't he do it? I see only two possibilities 1) He has some, yet to be revealed, reason for keeping Snape where he is or 2) He had some reason for wanting Umbridge in that position. He wanted an incompetent teacher in that class the very year his prize pupil was to take his OWLS? I suppose this could lead credence to the "Dumbledore asked Hermione to organize the DA theory" but I can't help feeling there is something more. Louise From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 28 17:02:08 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:02:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4017EB10.1010301@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89830 lizvega2 wrote: > > Trelawney. > > Snape. > > Flitwick. > > Firenze. > > Hagrid. > > Can anyone else think of someone who may have may have been placed > at Hogwarts for their own protection? > > McGonagall? Sprout? Pomfrey? Vector? Filch? > Lupin, Hagrid, Dobby, Trelawnley, Filch, and Firenze, have been given succour and shelter at Hogwarts, for reasons already defined by JKR. Dumbledore sure does seem to be housing a lot of the shunned and dispossed of the Magical Folk, in true and laudable Christian style. So who is left to be outed? Flitwick, a half elf? Snape, a half-vampire? (ducks) Is there a half-hag lurking amongst the teaching staff? Is Umbridge really a half-or-quarter Goblin? (not that DD gave her succour, but ..) Who might be a muggle-born Proforessor? (Mme Pomfrey? McGonagall? Vector?) What about lesbians like Grubbly-Plank? No,let us leave sexuality out of it; JKR is not going closer to this than metaphor. Actually I think Snape IS being protected there, and not necessarily because he may or may not be a vampire to some degree. There is more to his mystery and past. As a major character we should be rewarded with more of his back story in books 6 and 7. I personally vote for his being given DADA at the start of book seven. But I'm drifting from the point...... Dumbledore shows his goodness through his action, and not his words. He demonstrates true compassion through his equal opportunity employment programme. That should win him more friends than the exclusionist Voldemort in the long run. Pure-Bloods are a minority after all. The time is ripe for a revolution. There will be casualties on both sides, but Love must triumph over Hate, or I'm a dustbin (trash can to you left-pondians) digger From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jan 28 16:58:25 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:58:25 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: : > They are absolutely fascinated because they have heard the story > because the Chamber has apparently been opened. Prior to this, they > know nothing. This begs the question as to whether the story was > common knowledge in Riddle's day. Or whether perhaps, because IIRC > that his mother was a direct descendant of Slytherin, he had heard of > the CHambmer. > Kneasy: I think you underestimate the curiosity of the Hogwarts mob. Nothing like the idea of secret chambers to get 'em worked up. How many students through the centuries must have wondered about it? Certainly the staff did; we are told that the school had been searched many times trying to find it. Just the sort of part-time hobby kids like Harry or Ron would have been happy to indulge in. Wherever Tom heard about the Chamber, it wasn't from his mother or from any member of his family; he was in an orphanage until entering Hogwarts. However, Hermione hints that the Chamber is mentioned in 'Hogwarts, a History', she's annoyed that she'd left her copy at home and so can't read up on it. All the copies in the library have been grabbed by other seekers after truth. Tom probably picked it up there too. > Geoff: > I don't think he was responsible for Quirrell's exit. Harry grabbed > his face and, realising that he needed to keep him in pain to stop > any cursing, almost immmediately let go and clung on to his arm. > > I tend to disbelieve that briefly blistering Q's face and then > damaging his arm was sufficient to disable him to make Voldemort > abandon him. More likely that Quirrell's cover was now blown; he > would obviously be dealt with in some way by those who rescued Harry > and make him useless as a vehicle for Voldemort. Kneasy: I'd hardly call "howling in agony" and "Quirrell's terrible shrieks" a 'brief blistering'. Sounds a bit more disabling than that to me. Whatever the power in Harry was, it was inimicable to Voldy. He had to get away from it. Only option - leave Quirrell who promptly snuffs it. And it's Harry's fault. From Batchevra at aol.com Wed Jan 28 17:12:32 2004 From: Batchevra at aol.com (Batchevra at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:12:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's vampire essay Message-ID: <76.37203d56.2d494780@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89832 In a message dated 1/27/04 1:05:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: > Carol: > Not immediately afterwards. More than three months afterwards. Please see the dates I provided from the calendar in the Lexicon. Snape'sessay is assigned on November 5, Lupin's in the week precedingFebruary 12. Lupin's can't be a response to Snape's. There are weeks and weeks of unidentified creatures in between.<< I have been rereading POA and found that Lupin's Vampire essay was assigned in April. Pages 213 and 214 UK version, Snape's Grudge chapter ends with Hagrid sending Hermione a note that Buckbeak was sentenced to death, after Lupin tells Harry and Ron about the Vampire Essay in Snape's presence. The date is April 20, or after that date. On page 161 and 162 of POA UK version, Hagrid gets the note from the Ministry about the date of the hearing on April 20. Just a side note, Hitler's birthday was April 20. Batchevra, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 17:33:55 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:55 -0000 Subject: what 15mo olds are capable of perceiving Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89833 It is time for me to provide this input. My earliest memory is from spending a day visiting relatives when I was 15 months old, and I can remember quite a bit, not just images, but how I perceived things. (My mother can remember when she was even younger, so I must have gotten the gene.) I also live with a 15 month old, and am noticing his take on the world. The main point of interest is how I knew what was going on, but was not thinking in complex language in my own mind. In my memory, I wake up, look and realize that Dad is asleep, look and realize that Mom is also asleep, then spontaneously start playing catch with my stuffed toy to pass the time. But I did not think to myself, "Oh, both Mom and Dad are still sleeping, so I guess I should come up with something to do," or hear words to that effect in my brain. I just knew what was going on and suddenly started playing. Then I looked around the room, noting its decor (I can still remember a lot of detail) and then a sound made my head turn suddenly to the doorway. It was my beloved relative entering and saying something I did not understand, in a kind voice. My head turned as a reaction; there was no, "aha, that sounds like grandpa! Let me see him!" Later we went into the kitchen and then I hung out in his study, noting various objects I still recall. Afterwards we went to the beach, and I was put into a plastic boat, and grandpa started pulling it in the water, giving me a ride. I felt, "wow, everyone is being so nice to me! Gee! This is fun; he is kind to do all this work pulling me." But I didn't think the words. I just realized what was happening. Later I played with my shovel digging in the sand, and made a joke by then touching the shovel to the belly of a relative sunbathing lying right next to my sand hole. A relative said, "you are trying to dig a hole in her tummy!" and I remarked to myself that she was wrong; I was just making a little joke on the spot. Yet I did not plan it out elaborately; it was just a spontaneous reaction. Basically, I saw lots of things happening, and understood the dynamics and emotions of everyone, and recognized all my relatives. The thought that baby Harry was pretty powerful himself and might have been causing magic reactions just with his eyes, is the first clue I have found intriguing in years on that subject, and ties in with the wand-chooses-the-wizard brother wands clash idea too. I'm sure that from what Harry remembers from the dementors, his 15 month old self understood that his parents were extremely upset and frightened, and that a bad entity was harming them. He may well have wished that his parents be safe, in his toddler simple way, and that the bad person stop, and so forth. Who is to say he was not aware enough to be angry or upset or frightened, and possibly cause magic? Thanks for reading... Betta smaragdina From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 17:44:14 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:44:14 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89834 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" wrote: > > That's right, I think it possible that McGonagall was married to > Voldemort, and furthermore, that she still is. Well, that would be one scenario for JKR's saying in an interview that she can't talk about which Hogwarts professors had spouses because it becomes important to the plot later. (Some think it could be Snape, etc. filling the bill...) Betta smaragdina From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 18:10:01 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:10:01 -0000 Subject: Bode and Devil's Snare In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89835 Diana wrote: > Did we ever find out who sent Devil's Snare to Bode? I > searched the archives but I could not find any info. (snip) > I do have a theory that it was MacNair just because he > also sent a Hippogriff calendar, but I am wondering if > it was ever clarified? Now me (Nadine): I just read OotP again and I paid more attention to the chronological order of events. Bode got his Devil's Snare as a Christmas gift. Who sent it ? Logically, it cannot be any of the 10 imprisoned Death Eaters because Bode was strangled by the Devil's Snare the same night the ten Death Eaters escaped from Azkaban. So the plant was brought to St. Mungo's by a free Death Eater. Someone on this list (I could not find who in the archives, I apologize) once suspected Peter. Yes. On his first visit to St. Mungo's with the Weasleys, Harry notices a ?very old, stooped wizard with a hearing trumpet? at the front desk. Could this be a disguised Peter onto a reconnaissance mission ? He could have charmed his silver hand into a hearing device non ? And then, two days after the end of the xmas holidays, the trio finds out in the Daily Prophet that Bode has died. That morning, Ron says : ?Who expects Devil's Snare to turn up in a hospital disguised as a pot plant ? (...) They must be a real prat, why didn't they check what they were buying ?? OotP, p.483, Canadian Edition. Please notice the words ?disguised? and ?prat?, used by JKR. Is prat a hint for rat ? As for the Hippogriff calendar, I am wondering if it isn't a very bas taste hint from Peter, that Sirius is going to be the next one to die. After all, Peter must be aware, by now, of Sirius and Buckbeak's tale. I apologize for my awkward written English. It is not my mother tongue. Like Iris always says on this list : Amicalement, Nadine ;-) From watsola79 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 18:37:10 2004 From: watsola79 at yahoo.com (watsola79) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:37:10 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a pureblood? (and wizard aristocracy in general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > Sigune asked: > Do we in fact know that the titled ghosts like Sir Nicholas were > wizards when alive? > Yes, I believe we do, because as Nick himself tells Harry at the end of OOP, "not everyone can come back as a ghost.....only wizards". --Lana Lovegood From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 19:13:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:13:01 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > > > My I draw your thoughts, to a famous childrens book, written many > > years ago, in a less free society. This book, as it happens, is > > named The Hobbit. There is tons of killing in that book, villagers, > > spiders, and main character dwarves. Is it impossible that JKR may > > kill of main charactars, no. > > > > Andrew > > Neri answers: > > I read The Hobit the last time several years ago, so my memory might > not be accurate, but I remember the death of only one major > character, at the very end and with a good moral. So I'd say that by > the Hobbit's standard JKR already filled her blood quota. > > A more relevant example may be LOTR, with a full-scale war and a very > high body count. I can recall the death of only one major character > in LOTR (Boromir, of course. Theoden was hardly a major character in > the book, as opposed to the movies), and again with a very good > moral. > > But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more > major characters. I merely asked: what for? > > Neri Carol (warning: Spoilers for LOTR and "The Hobbit.") * * * * * * * * * * * Three of the dwarves in "The Hobbit" are killed, at least one of whom (Thorin) is a major character. (The themes in the Battle of Five Armies chapter are more "adult" than those elsewhere in the book--the evils of war and greed, for example.) As for LOTR, it did start out as a sequel to "The Hobbit," which accounts for the slow pace of the initial chapters, but it ceases to resemble a children's book by the eighth chapter ("Fog on the Barrow Downs"), and the more adult themes are present from the outset with the lure of the One Ring and the mysterious Nazgul (whom we don't equate yet with the Black Riders). I think that for Tolkien, having to leave Middle Earth, as Frodo does, is sadder than dying.You're right, though, that sacrifice doesn't have to involve death, as Frodo's case clearly illustrates. BTW, Tolkien considered having Pippin die "doing something brave" and changed his mind, instead having him "grow" both literally and figuratively. I think that will happen to the characters in the HP series as well, especially Harry, Ron, and Neville. I agree with you that none of them needs to die, though they will certainly make sacrifices. However, JKR has said straight out that there will be more deaths and that some of them will be "favorite characters." I personally think that means Dumbledore and/or Hagrid and possibly Lupin as well (all characters for whom JKR has expressed affection). I hope it doesn't mean HRH, Neville, or Snape, but I'm afraid that at least one Weasley will die. I'm sure that we'll lose some minor characters as well, say Dean Thomas or Professor Flitwick. And then there's Draco and his father--bad guys, certainly, but many readers seem to like them. In any case, as someone else has said, the war is about to begin, and war means deaths--fortunately not on the scale of LOTR, much less real wars like WWI or II, but deaths, nevertheless. And they won't all be bad guys or minor characters. Carol From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 28 19:30:15 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:30:15 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comparisons References: <1075254150.17892.23353.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002501c3e5d5$38cf2480$25e66151@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 89838 Frost wrote: > Yes it is. However, Cromwell, whether or not his ends justified >his means, did work to lift the yoke of the nobles from the masses. >Voldie, admitedly by his own followers, and himself, wishes to >saddle the masses (there are a lot more muggle born and half-muggles >than pure-bloods) with the nobility. While we must accept a certain I'm not actually sure what Voldemort might intend for the "commoner" element in the WW, so long as they didn't stand in his way, though I agree that he'd want to put his loyalists in the positions of power and say "have some fun", the kind of way that warlords and terrorists do when they come to power. The numbers of wizards who have a muggle parent has to be fairly small - JKR has told us that they make up a quarter of the Hogwarts students and I'm of the view that the total number of students at Hogwarts is a very small proportion indeed of the total number of children in the WW. If you go back and count the number of grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, then obviously the proportion of non-purebloods rises dramatically, as Ron points out in CoS. It still leaves open exactly how far you have to go back to be considered a pureblood (and I think your characterisation of them as "nobility" is quite right) - Ernie MacMillan has nine generations of wizard ancestors in CoS and he's still nervous (if you assume that wizards have double the lifespan of muggles and therefore a WW generation is twice that in our world, then he's talking about wizard ancestry going back 540 years)! Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 19:38:23 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:38:23 -0000 Subject: Narrative style and POV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89839 > Carol said: > Instead she's chosen a limited omniscient narrator who > usually but not always tells the story from Harry's perspective. > Occasionally she chooses another POV character--or none at all. In at > least three instances that I mentioned in my previous post, she > reports events that Harry is unaware of from an outside perspective, > which could arguably be either third-person omniscient or third- > person > dramatic.\ > Andrew: > Whenever these parts happen in the story doesn't it end up that > Harry is dreaming about them? So technically wouldn't it still be > from Harry's point of view, but a dream at that. Carol: You're right about the instances in which the POV character is Voldemort or Frank Bryce. We only know what's in their heads because Harry does. But the first chapter of SS/PS occurs when he's a baby and isn't even present until Hagrid arrives. (Certainly the narrator isn't inside Uncle Vernon's head because Harry is dreaming about him.) He's also not present to witness Hermione setting fire to Snape's cloak (he's up in the air, struggling with his broom). And there are moments, like the one where Neville is lying awake but Harry doesn't know it, where she slips from his perspective just long enough to give us some information that she couldn't provide if she sustained his point of view throughout. (That's the nice thing about a limited omniscient point of view. The narrator can report what's going on outside the character if she chooses. But notice that she doesn't go inside Neville's head. And we never go inside the teachers' offices or the staff room or Hagrid's hut unless Harry is there.) Anywy, IMO, it's those moments when she's clearly ot presenting events from Harry's perspective when she's most reliable. Thanks for being interested in this topic. :-) Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 28 19:48:22 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:48:22 -0000 Subject: post- mortem storytelling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: Andrew: > Does it really matter what perspective JKR writes in? She is the > author, she has a creative license to write in whatever style she > wants. She could jump from perspective to perspective any way she > wants, whatever she sees fit she will do. Something has been > bothering me ever since I first visited this site, people seem to > mix thoughts. They will either treat the charactars in the books as > real people, with real thoughts, real motives; or, treat it from > JKR's perspective, asking her motives, her thoughts etc. Should > theories be limited to one or the other? Geoff: I think we have two different sides of the coin here. If you know and like a book and perhaps read it a lot, you will begin to look on the characters as people who you know, whose reactions you may be able to gauge, with whom you feel at ease. I realised with a jolt this week that it is not far short of 50 years since I first read "The Lord of the Rings" ? in 1956 to be precise. In that time, I have read it 25-30 times. I now feel that I know the characters and, when I turn to a page, I am meeting old friends. I know their turns of phrase, I know their liking in food and clothes, their attitude to events, their interaction one with the other. So they are perhaps "real" in my imagination. On the other hand, because the Harry Potter books have not all been published, we speculate on the outcomes. (I wonder whether the same happened on a smaller scale in the hiatus between the publication of TTT and ROTK in 1954/55?). After all, if we are all right, Harry will or will not die; Snape is or isn't a vampire; Dumbledore is or isn't reliable; Ron will or will not become Head Boy and so the list goes on. Isn't it fun? Just another little while and the story will reach its end and we can all sit back with a sigh and reminisce about the good old days of HPFGU. No, no, let's have all the theories and ideas out on the table ? the good, the bad and the ugly. It's so invigorating to cross swords with other members or to voice our agreement with them. But the bottom line is that JKR is the creator and obviously she knows where she wants to take her "family" and ultimately, we will find out whether our vibes were in tune with hers or not. And if you don't like it, there's always fanfic!! From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 28 20:04:01 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:04:01 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > I think you underestimate the curiosity of the Hogwarts mob. > Nothing like the idea of secret chambers to get 'em worked up. How > many students through the centuries must have wondered about it? > Certainly the staff did; we are told that the school had been searched > many times trying to find it. Just the sort of part-time hobby kids like > Harry or Ron would have been happy to indulge in. Geoff: Reiterating my point, no one seemed to know about the Chamber until the first petrifying event. Maybe it is in "Hogwarts, a History" but it does seemt hat the only person who reads it prior to this is HG..... > > Geoff: > > I don't think he was responsible for Quirrell's exit. Harry grabbed > > his face and, realising that he needed to keep him in pain to stop > > any cursing, almost immmediately let go and clung on to his arm. > > > > I tend to disbelieve that briefly blistering Q's face and then > > damaging his arm was sufficient to disable him to make Voldemort > > abandon him. More likely that Quirrell's cover was now blown; he > > would obviously be dealt with in some way by those who rescued Harry > > and make him useless as a vehicle for Voldemort. > > Kneasy: > I'd hardly call "howling in agony" and "Quirrell's terrible shrieks" a > 'brief blistering'. Sounds a bit more disabling than that to me. > Whatever the power in Harry was, it was inimicable to Voldy. He had > to get away from it. Only option - leave Quirrell who promptly snuffs > it. And it's Harry's fault. Geoff: If you get burnt, even fairly slightly, it's very painful. And Quirrell's shrieks were linked to Harry holding his arm. "Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm and hung on as tight as he could. Quirrell screamed..." (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.214 UK edition) Not continued to scream. The implication is that he began again. So his arm is perhaps getting badly burned. Hardly likely to be fatal with Madam Pomfrey's abilities. Add to that, who the dickens started the attack? Who tried to kill him? Harry acted in self-defence and whatever happened to Quirrell - whoever killed him and I maintain it was Voldemort - it's not Harry's fault. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 20:19:07 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:19:07 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89842 > > Carol wrote: > > However, it's possible that Lily placed a protective charm on him > > that caused the scar to appear when Voldemort tried to AK Harry. I > > don't think it was merely her love that protected him. (After all, > > Barty Crouch's mother also died for her son, but she didn't save > > him from evil influences--or dementors.) > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > Whizbang here: > Barty Crouch Jr.'s mother died of an illness. Good planning got > junior out of Azkaban and substitued Mrs Crouch, but it's not quite > the same thing. > > Beyond that, Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the Dark > Lord. To compare him to any other mother's son in this situation is > again, apples and oranges. And while I concede that our information > concerning the lack of a countercurse for the AK came from fake > Moody, ie Crouch Jr, still if there was a countercurse, I'm sure > everyone would know it. Molly would be practicing it on a shooting > range. If there is a countercurse, it seems odd that Lily would be > the only one who knew it. > > It seems like Harry's being "the one with the power" is what > backfired Voldemort's AK. > We're not talking about a countercurse like Protego that would deflect a Cruciatus curse. We're talking about a protective charm placed on Harry before he was attacked that would only be effective if Lily herslef died--a very powerful charm that involves a lot more than the love of a mother who died protecting her son. (I'm not saying that it did happen, only that it's possible given the evidence already presented.) I originally thought as you do that the power was in Harry himself, but JKR kept presenting new evidence that contradicted that theory--first the Parseltongue that Harry acquired from LV when some of LV's powers were passed to him, so that clearly there was more involved than a deflected spell that rebounded on LV; then the idea that Lily's love protected him (surely, as you seem to agree, a mother's love alone is not going to save her child from Avada Kedavra). We keep learning more about the scar and its powers and how Harry acquired it as we progress through the series. Clearly it's not as simple as it appears in the early books and we haven't learned everything there is to know about it. When Mandy first suggested that Lily had put a charm on Harry that protected him from LV's curse, I was skeptical, too. (I think that's a natural reaction to something we haven't thought of ourselves. :-) ) But the more I thought about it, the more sense it made, and I put together the canon evidence that seemed to support her theory, from Lily's wand to the Eihwaz rune. Again, no theory can be proven or it wouldn't be a theory, but this one is interesting and there's enough canonical evidence to support the possibility that Lily cast a protective charm on Harry. Also, you might consider that we don't know what powers Harry had as a baby before LV "marked" him. He seems to have inherited James's skill at flying and he may have inherited some skill at charms and transfiguration from his parents (though we haven't seen much of it because he only applies himself when he sees the need, as when he learns to conjure a Patronus or masters the summoning charm to save himself from a dragon). It seems to me that Harry would have just been an ordinary wizard boy, good at quidditch like Charlie Weasley but no match for Voldemort, if it hadn't been for LV transferring some of his powers to him. I don't think he could have saved himself, at the age of fifteen months, from the spell that killed both his parents. (His accidental magic, for example making his hair grow back or dissolving the glass in the python cage, occurs *after* the transfer of powers.) I realize that this explanation doesn't in itself support the charm theory; I'm only explaining here why I no longer think that the power to deflect the AK was in baby Harry to begin with. > Carol wrote: > > The runes that have been discussed here lately are probably > > important, too--not because of the appearance of Harry's scar in > > the films or the illustrations in the books, but because of > > Hermione's (and Luna's) interest in runes. One of them is bound to > > notice that Harry's lightning-shaped scar resembles the Eihwas > > rune, which Hermione confused with Ehwaz on her O.W.L.s: "I > > mistranslated 'ehwaz'," said Hermione furiously. It means > > 'partnership,' not 'defense.' I mixed it up with 'eihwaz.'" (OoP > > 715, Am. ed.). So if eihwaz (defense or protection is indeed > > lightning-shaped, the scar could be a form of protection for Harry- > > -as well as the mark that Voldemort placed on him ("marked him as > > his equal"). > Whizbang here: > Well explained. We used the movie and book covers in an attempt to > identify the rune that scars Harry's forehead. It's a matter of > interpretation, especially as there isn't really any consistency in > illustrations, but as near as we could figure, we thought it looked > like the sowelo. That said .......... ? Carol: I don't think we can use the book covers or the movie as canonical evidence. We need to look at the text itself. First, we have the lightning-bolt shape of the scar (mentioned in every book). Then we have the reference to the Eihwaz rune. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a reference to the Sowelo rune in the books so far. The scene with Hermione's O.W.L.s looks (to me) like one of those *apparently* insignificant moments that JKR likes to drop in (that Hermione! Worrying about one wrong answer!) but which will turn out to be significant. And as I said, it's Eihwaz, not Sowelo, that's mentioned. Carol, who also thinks that Snape's references to the bezoar will be significant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 20:35:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:35:20 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89843 -Louise Margaret Freeman wrote: > I think that one thing that will need to be explained in future books is why > Snape was not given the DADA job at the beginning of OotP, when the > Educational Decree was passed giving the ministry power to appoint a teacher > *if* Dumbledore could not fill the post. He says he trusts Snape. Snape > had substituted for Lupin in the class back in PoA. Snape wants the job. > Dumbledore could therefore have stopped Umbridge from being appointed with > one stroke of his quill. Why didn't he do it? > > I see only two possibilities 1) He has some, yet to be revealed, reason for > keeping Snape where he is or 2) He had some reason for wanting Umbridge in > that position. He wanted an incompetent teacher in that class the very year > his prize pupil was to take his OWLS? Carol: I realize that this isn't a complete explanation, but if DD hires Snape to teach DADA, he'll have to hire a new Potions teacher. Since Snape, despite his teaching methods, does know more than virtually anyone else in the WW about potions and antidotes (one of the few who can concoct a wolfbane potion, for example), DD needs him where he is. As for the hiring of Umbridge, I don't think DD had a choice. But Lockhart? Something is definitely going on with the hiring of DADA teachers. Maybe the position really is jinxed. If so, I can see why he would want to keep Snape out of it. Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 28 20:50:31 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:50:31 -0000 Subject: Snape passionate about the dark arts? [was: Snape] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy King" wrote: > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > Sigune, the point I'm addressing isn't your main point, but I still > think it's worth asking about. Do we KNOW that Snape is passionate > about the dark arts? Isn't one of the things we readers are often > cautioned about concerning JKR is that we should question statements > of "fact" made by CHARACTERS? I know Percy first told Harry that > Snape wants the DADA post, and other students have said it, too, > saying something like "everyone knows" that he fancies the position. > > But has Snape ever said--or DD or any other teacher--that he truly > wants the position? > Kathy: > > Actually there is canon proof when Umbridge asked Snape about it when she observed his class: > > OoP pg. 363, 364 Umbridge says "You applied first for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?" Snape answers yes. > > Then Umbridge says "You've applied regularly for the DaDa post > since you first joined the school, I believe? Snape answers yes again. > > Then Umbridge asks "Do you gave any idea why Dumbledore has > consistently refused to appoint you?" Snape replies "I suggest you ask him." > Siriusly Snapey Susan: Kathy, this example, I believe, was actually part of what started the original discussion that Snape & DD might be doing this as kind of a "PR stunt". :-) For even though Snape says that he applied, and even though he admits that he's applied over & over, he never STATES that's he desperately wants the position and actually directs Umbridge to DD, rather than explain why he's been refused the job. :- ) So while this exchange could mean nothing more than that Snape HAS wanted the job all along, it could also fit the "Snape & DD have been making it appear Snape wants the job" scenario, because Snape never explains why he's applied/been refused. On the other hand, there was another subsequent post to mine which referred us to the Royal Albert Hall interview, wherein JKR said: "That is an excellent question and the reason is I have to be careful not to say too much. When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said "I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please" and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said "I think we'll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there". So my comments have been shown to be pretty weak. Siriusly Snapey Susan From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 17:40:44 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:40:44 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89845 > Neri answers: > > I read The Hobbit the last time several years ago, so my memory might > not be accurate, but I remember the death of only one major > character, at the very end and with a good moral. So I'd say that by > the Hobbit's standard JKR already filled her blood quota. > > A more relevant example may be LOTR, with a full-scale war and a very > high body count. I can recall the death of only one major character > in LOTR (Boromir, of course. Theoden was hardly a major character in > the book, as opposed to the movies), and again with a very good > moral. > > But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more > major characters. I merely asked: what for? Hitomi now: Konnichiwa minna-san! We got snow! and my internet server has been down, plus I had to write papers. Anyway, onto posting: Neri asked why would JKR kill more major characters (though of course we don't know if she will or not). As far as LOTR goes, Frodo, Elrond, Gandalf, etc. sail away into the Grey Havens. That's death, just a very peaceful death. So some main characters get knocked off in that book as well. But why I think JKR might kill off more characters: she's writing a war. Sirius's death was tragic, sudden, almost unreal and unmoving in its suddeness, not to mention inexplicaple. It was realistic, because that's how a lot of deaths are, especially during war. It was a good death, but sad in the fact that Sirius was a lonely, depressed, flawed adult, who's life was destroyed fifteen years ago. He never got the chance to know real happiness again, and he never found peace. But, he died in an effort to protect Harry, one of the few bright spots in his life. And after recently re-reading Book 3, any thought of Sirius saddens me deeply. And I think, if JKR is trying to write any message, it's that this sort of thing does happen, and why protect children from the reality of that, even though, yes, the books are technically children's books. She continually compares LV to Hitler in interviews, and everyone knows how many people died needlessly in that war. All I'm saying is that it would be entirely unrealistic if she didn't kill off more characters, what with over half the Order having been murdered last time. It just wouldn't make sense. Not that I want to see characters die, but I've already acclimated myself to the fact that they probably will. DD or one of the Weasleys dying wouldn't surprise me in the least; and I expect some of the lesser- known Order members to die. Harry dying wouldn't surprise me, though it would be a long time before I picked up Book 7 again. There doesn't have to be a reason why she should kill anymore major characters. Because when someone dies, we never understand the reasons anyway. And when I thought of other children's books I read that contained death, Ender's Game immediately came to mind, along with Madeleine L'Engle's and Philip Pullman's works. Ender kills two boys in that book (one at the age of six, which was technically manslaughter, and one at nine in self-defense), not to mention he massacres an entire species at the end of the novel (he didn't know what he was doing). L'Engle has characters die in her books, and Pullman killed Frederick in the Sally Lockhart series, and lots of people in the Dark Materials trilogy (I hated the way Amber Spyglass ended). So, it's not uncommon. Wow, that was a depressing subject. On to happier things... ~ Hitomi From joi_foley at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 18:25:22 2004 From: joi_foley at hotmail.com (makemeatree) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:25:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Thestrals (Re: Did Harry See Lily Die?) In-Reply-To: <003301c3e591$09cdb280$5902a8c0@Belkin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89846 Debbie wrote: > First, if Harry had seen Lily die, he should have seen the thestrals his first year at Hogwarts. JKR has said that some time is needed to *process* a death before the thestrals become visible. I have no idea what she means by that, since Harry's anger in OOP suggest to me that while he certainly remembers what happened in the graveyard, he has yet to fully process it. So I don't think it makes sense to argue that he hasn't processed Lily's death, or that he doesn't remember it. He does have memories of it (at least from PoA onward), even if they are buried rather deeply. > joi: I have to say my piece on the thestrals. We know that Harry saw something of his mother's death because we know from the very first book that he has memories of a green light and screaming. It's right there in the first book. He saw *something*. He was there, and it is firmly embedded in his memory. Why then couldn't he see the thestrals? The answer also lies in the first book: Harry thought for all those years that his parents died in a car crash. If he completely remembered his mother's death, he wouldn't have believed for all that time that she had died in a car crash. We can suppose that he doubted the car crash story, but it was what he took to be mostly truth. Since Harry couldn't fully remember seeing his mother die, he wasn't able to see the thestrals. As for the 'process' comment, I think it fits my explanation. Baby Harry, although a witness to his mother's death, could not process that experience. He never got a chance to fully understand his mother's death. He was too young to understand then, and then he was told some crum story about a car crash for 11 years that he (at least partially) believed. We can say that Harry has accepted his mother's death, and he understands it, but with a lot of time and BS in between. The other examples of people who can see thestrals- Harry post cedric, Luna, and Neville- weren't babies when they saw the deaths they claim give them the ability to see the thestrals. I may be wrong on that, since I don't have OotP, but if I recall, Luna mentions the age she was when he mother died, and it was young, but not a baby. I don't believe Neville gives an age, but, judging by the way he talks about it, as well as who it was (his grandfather), he couldn't have been a baby, either. Debbie also wrote: > The second reason is that the memories that the Dementors bring to the surface are only audio memories. Harry tells Lupin that he can *hear* Voldemort murdering Lily. There are no visuals to go with it, although he does have visual memories of his own encounter with Voldemort, which are described in ch. 2 of PS/SS. While there is more than one possible explanation of this, one is that Harry simply didn't see the murder. Maybe it was dark. Maybe she had gone out of the room to head off Voldemort. Either way, I don't think Harry saw either the murder or a dead body. joi: I'll point out again that, in PS/SS, arry has a visual memory of his mother's death, albeit limited. I would also like to point out that just because Harry only has auditory memories around the dementors doesn't mean he doesn't have visual ones. Harry passes out when he first meets the dementors, and he fights and fights to keep concious whenever he's near them. Psychologically speaking, I believe that the reason Harry passes out is because his brain is workin' real hard to hide a memory he's kept hidden for a long, long time. I've read quite a few case studies of people who had traumatic experiences in their childhood, repressed certain memories, and would pass out whenever they tried to recall them. That's what I see happening to Harry, especially considering the dementors brought out new info on his parents death. Those guys dig *deep*, and Harry's brain(+heart) weren't going to let them get the best of him. They fought back the best way they knew how... they let the boy pass out. That's how I feel about it. Thanks, joi. From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 28 20:00:06 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:00:06 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89847 In Response to Sue's post Carol responded (in part): > In other words, I'm arguing that Snape couldn't have been in the > graveyard and must be the one who "has left us forever," but I agree > with you that he's dealing primarily with Malfoy and not with LV > directly. But with Malfoy in Azkaban, that situation has to change, > and Snape's danger is almost certain to increase in the next two > books. It will be interesting to see his interactions with Draco and > the other sons of Death Eaters in Book 6. . . . > > Carol Thanks for the response Carol. I completely agree with you. Unfortunately I wrote my post before I read yours. I am, however, still curious about JKR's decision to omit the names of the 6 DE's missing from the circle. She (or Voldemort) named all of the others, including some who had been killed: "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." (GOF pg 651 US hardback ed.) It has always seemed odd to me that Voldemort never refers to Crouch Jr. by name, only as "my faithful servant". It leaves the door open, IMO, for the people in those empty positions to be different than we assume. The "Dark Lord's" servant is not specifically named in the prophacy made by Trelawny in PoA either. Because JKR uses misinformation and leads us to a conclusion that is not necessarily correct throughout her stories, it just strikes me that these omissions may also be purposeful. Anything strike you? Sue (Who loves reading your posts and is repeatedly getting in trouble for not snipping enough. I hope I behaved this time!) From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 20:28:46 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:28:46 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89848 My New Clues book talks a little about the Mimbulus Mimbletonia ( I know I spelled that wrong, sorry), and it says something a long the lines of 'Mimbulus Mimbletonia' meaning 'mimble wimble'- in some fashion- I forget and I don't have any books in front of me. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Uncle Vernon say the exact same thing "Mimble Wimble" in PS? When Hagrid comes to the shack in the sea to get Harry, Vernon says 'mimble wimble' and later Hagrid tries to turn Dudley into a pig- but only gives him a tail. I never thought anything was suspicious about that after reading COS- because it makes sense that Hagrid wouldn't have been able to do advanced transfiguration like that- but...... more on that later Neville accidentally sprays stinksap on himself, Harry, Ginny, and Luna in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the way to school. Later, in the MOM the only ones who aren't seriously hurt are Neville, Ginny, Luna, and Harry. Also, the same four are very dumbfounded by the Veil in the Death Chamber. Is the plant some sort of protection device? If, so, is it too much of a coincidence that Uncle Vernon said 'mimble wimble' and Dudley was only given a tail moments later? Am I crazy? Or is there something else here? From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 21:26:41 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:26:41 -0000 Subject: Did Harry See Lily Die? (Was: Neville's Role) In-Reply-To: <003301c3e591$09cdb280$5902a8c0@Belkin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > ... What do you mean when you write that Harry didn't SEE his > > mother's death? Harry was 15 months old, and at that age he > > definitely could have seen the whole thing. His memory might not > > be able to hang on to much of the experience, but I believe he > > saw it alright. Or are you saying that > > Lily blocked his vision? > > > ElfunDeb: > > No, I believe that Harry saw nothing of Lily's murder, for a couple of reasons. > > First, if Harry had seen Lily die, he should have seen the thestrals > his first year at Hogwarts. ...edited... > > The second reason is that the memories that the Dementors bring to > the surface are only audio memories. ...edited... Either way, I > don't think Harry saw either the murder or a dead body. > > Debbie bboy_mn: My impressions of the event- 1.) It was nighttime. 2.) Lily and Harry were upstair. Not use I can prove this, and it may be movie contamination, but upstair/upper floor is always how I pictured it in my head. So, if I start with those assumptions, what can I conclude? What would a baby be doing upstairs at night? ...Sleeping perhaps, or at least in bed? Extending that assumption, what kind of bed would the baby be in? Bed, bassinet, crib, or cradle? Putting a baby in a bed is never safe, so that's out. Given the somewhat out-of-date world that wizards live in, I can only assume they used a bassinet (a large wicker basket like baby bed) or a cradle. The cage-like crib seems a little too modern, and doesn't fit with other representations of 'baby containment devices' I've seen in movies and photos that are representative of this apparent point in historical time. Conclusion, a bassinet or cradle has high solid sides, and would have given Harry a very very limited view of the room. This is compounded by wondering whether a 15 month old is capable of processing the information sufficiently for it to sink in. Is a baby capable of sufficiently processing the event to allow him to see the Thestrals? Personally, I don't think so. I know that doesn't add much to the discussion, but I think the basic logistics make it unlikely that Harry saw, or saw with any awareness, his mother die. Just a thought. bboy_mn From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 21:48:17 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:48:17 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ali" wrote: > I am still unsure how Barty Crouch Junior could have got 12 O.W.L.s, > and a possible explanation is awarding 2 grades per subject. But, > then 12 O.W.L.s would not be such a terrific achievement: > > Possible subjects: > > Divination > DADA x 2 > Charms x 2 > Transfiguration x 2 > CoMC x 2 > History of Magic > Muggle Studies > Runes > Arithmancy > Astrononomy x 2 > Potions x 2 > Herbology > Christy's thoughts: It seems to me that Barty's 12 is possible, and it does seem to make some sense, with the 2 OWL system. We know that all the students take DADA, Charms, Transfiguration, History of Magic, Astronomy, Potions and Herbology. If you add up these possible OWLS (counting 2 where there is a practical and written exam) you get 12 OWLS all students would take. Assuming that each student then takes one or two extra subjects (ex. Harry also has CoMC and Divination) then there are 14 possible OWLs that he could get. Hermione has 15 possible (Arithmancy, Ancient Runes and CoMC). So, when you then consider that OWLs are supposed to demonstrate a level of expertise (evidenced by some teachers requiring certain grades to continue) I would think that 12 OWLs would be quite good. Remember Fred and George got 3 each, which is clearly not good, but it also seems to be an expectation that it's very rare for people to get all of their OWLs. Cheers... Christy From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jan 28 22:14:37 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:14:37 -0000 Subject: Peeves; was:Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Trelawney > Snape > Flitwick > Firenze > Hagrid > McGonagall? Sprout? Pomfrey? Vector? Filch? Now AmanitaMuscaria writes: I certainly agree with you that Hogwarts appears to be a home for castouts, waifs and strays who are in need of refuge and protection. Witness Dobby and Winky within canon. But what about the joker in the pack? I know we can't say very much about Peeves, as we've not been given much info about him. But he's impossible, disruptive, chaotic. There MUST be some reason why Dumbledore allows him to stay? And I suspect channeling the suppressed aggression of pubescent girls isn't it. There's no reference of him in the brief glimpses we've had of Tom's schooldays and Dippett's headmastership, so presumably his residency is fairly recent (in wizarding terms). I don't know why he's there, but I reckon he's got to be important. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 22:33:38 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:33:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89852 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > "K" > > Yes, but it was assigned after the werewolf incident. > Carol: > Lupin's can't be a response to Snape's. There are weeks > and weeks of unidentified creatures in between. "K" I still say it doesn't matter. Lupin could assign what he wanted when he wanted. If Snape changed the order of things why couldn't Lupin do the same? There's more to that vampire essay but I'll just wait to comment on that when I get my notes together. Guess I won't discuss vampires until then. ;-) "K" ~~'Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire essay. Excuse us, Severus.~~ From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jan 28 22:37:29 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:37:29 -0000 Subject: Harry and the chocolate egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ghinghapuss" > wrote: > > >--JDR > > >I think Molly will die before the series ends, and both the fact > > >and the manner of her death will be gut-wrenching. > > > > Mandy here: > > > > Could JKR kill and/or maim another mother in the series? > > Harry's mum murdered > > Neville's tortured > > Tom Riddle's dead in childbirth agony > > Sirius' mother dead and her memory portrait seriously deranged. > > > > I don't think I could take any more. Molly is the only > > representation of a 'mum' loving, nurturing and alive that we and > > Harry have. Carol wrote:> Just a thought. Many fantasies, folk tales, and fairy tales begin with > the hero (or heroine) already orphaned, or a parent, usually the > mother, is killed off early in the story. Take virtually any character from Bambi > to Harry himself. The death of the mother is a plot device to force > the hero to come to terms with life without the sheltering love of a > mother. But to kill off a surrogate mother like Molly at a stage when > the hero has outgrown that need (or the best friend's mother when he > also is growing up) serves no such purpose. It's male friends and > father figures that matter to Harry now, as we saw with Sirius. So, as > I stated in the previous post, I think Molly will suffer greatly and > lose more than one son, but I don't think she herself will die. > > Carol AmanitaMuscaria now writes : Carol, you're quite right about the need for a hero to not have encumbering parent figures, and they are usually absent from a very early age. The transition to adulthood is taken by the hero with very little emotional support, until the arrival of the mentor. This pattern, however, seems to leave out all of the human, feeling side of the journey, and concentrate on the adventures of the hero. I tend to think (or maybe hope?) that JKR will not make the series into an action tale, but will deal to some extent with Harry's personal growth as well as with him becoming the conquering hero. She's certainly following his emotional turmoil so far - I hope she will give him some pointers (Molly? Luna?) about how people live their everyday lives ... Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jan 28 22:45:59 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:45:59 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > "K" > > > Yes, but it was assigned after the werewolf incident. > > > > Carol: > > Lupin's can't be a response to Snape's. There are weeks > > and weeks of unidentified creatures in between. > > "K" > > I still say it doesn't matter. Lupin could assign what he wanted when > he wanted. If Snape changed the order of things why couldn't Lupin do > the same? > > There's more to that vampire essay but I'll just wait to comment on > that when I get my notes together. Guess I won't discuss vampires > until then. ;-) > > "K" > > ~~'Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire essay. > Excuse us, Severus.~~ AmanitaMuscaria writes: Who's to say he actually assigned it? I know Ron isn't very fast on the uptake, but I bet Harry would say straightaway, 'Right, Prof. Lupin.' I reckon it was just a ploy to get them out of there. Same as fake-Mad-Eye-Moody saying the parchment was his when Harry was stuck in the stairs in GoF. I think a lot of the teachers push Snape's buttons something wicked whenever they can. No wonder he's so wound-up. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 22:51:59 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:51:59 -0000 Subject: Peeves; was:Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89855 AmanitaMuscaria writes: I certainly agree with you that Hogwarts > appears to be a home for castouts, waifs and strays who are in need > of refuge and protection. > Witness Dobby and Winky within canon. > But what about the joker in the pack? I know we can't say very much > about Peeves, as we've not been given much info about him. But he's > impossible, disruptive, chaotic. There MUST be some reason why > Dumbledore allows him to stay? And I suspect channeling the > suppressed aggression of pubescent girls isn't it. > There's no reference of him in the brief glimpses we've had of Tom's > schooldays and Dippett's headmastership, so presumably his residency > is fairly recent (in wizarding terms). > I don't know why he's there, but I reckon he's got to be important. Meri here: Peeves showed in OotP his good qualites, or quality, rather. He was loyal to Dumbledore and openly anti-Umbridge. Though in the first four books he was, of course, a slight hellraiser, he seemed to wait until the arrival of Umbridge to really cause some chaos, like a pair of redheaded, freckle faced, Quidditch playing hellions I could mention. Most of his previous infractions were little more than the type of pranks that the average kid would play: stuffing gum in keyholes and dropping water balloons. But he pulls out all the stops after Umbridge is named Headmistress, unscrewing chandelliers and the like. It is said in POA that DD is the only person at the school who can make Peeves behave. Maybe this respect and loyaly to the headmaster, and Peeves' presence at Hogwarts, are all related. Maybe Peeves has some unknown powers, or he serves as one of DD's multiple eyes and ears around the school. After all, he was the one who knew what had happened to the Fat Lady after her attack by Sirius Black. Meri (who thinks another good question to come out of OotP will be what's going to happen to Filch now that he's shown his true colors, but that is a post for another day) From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 23:21:20 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:21:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: > AmanitaMuscaria writes: Who's to say he actually assigned it? "K" Lupin acknowledges he assigned the essay. 'Well!' said Lupin, clapping his hands together and looking around cheerfully. 'That seems to clear that up!' Severus, I'll take this back, shall I?' He folded the map and tucked it inside his robes. "Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire essay. Excuse us, Severus.' PoA/Ch 14/pg 213/UK AmanitaMuscaria: > I know Ron isn't very fast on the uptake, but I bet Harry would say > straightaway, 'Right, Prof. Lupin.' "K" Harry didn't dare look at Snape as they left his office. PoA/Ch 14/pg 213/UK AmanitaMuscaria: >I reckon it was just a ploy to get them out of there. "K" Even if Lupin used it as a ploy to get them out of there, the fact remains that a vampire essay was indeed given by Lupin. 'Hi, Neville,' said Harry, moving swiftly away from the statue and pushing the map back into his pocket. 'What are you up to?' 'Nothing,' shrugged Neville. 'Want a game of Exploding Snap?' 'Er - not now - I was going to go to the library and do that vampire essay for Lupin-' 'I'll come with you!' said Neville brightly. 'I haven't done it either!' 'Er - hang on - yeah, I forgot, I finished it last night!' 'Brilliant, you can help me!' said Neville, his round face anxious. 'I don't understand that thing about the garlic at all - do they have to eat it, or -' Neville broke off with a small gasp, looking over Harry's shoulder. It was Snape. Neville took a quick step behind Harry. PoA/Ch 14/pg 204/UK The vampire essay is assigned by Lupin. The essay is mentioned twice in this chapter. Snape is present each time. Promise...no more comments on this subject till later. "K" "Snape never eats here," Ron told Harry quietly. OoP/Ch 4/pg 77/US From belijako at online.no Wed Jan 28 23:43:08 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:43:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89857 Mandy wrote in message #89823 (Was Re: Harry and the chocolate egg): There's also Snape's mum. We don't know if she is alive or dead, but we do have the impression she was treated badly by his dad. Berit replies: I don't know if this has been brought up at this forum before, but has anyone wondered whether Agnes might be Snape's mother? In the long-term(!) residents' ward at St. Mungo's there are five patients: Lockhart, Bode, Neville's parents and Agnes: Quote: "Two beds along was a woman whose entire head was covered in fur; Harry remembered something similar happening to Hermione during their second year, although fortunately the damage, in her case, had not been permanent. ... 'Here you are, Agnes,' said the Healer brightly to the furry-faced woman, handing her a small pile of Christmas presents. 'See, not forgotten, are you? And your son's sent an owl to say he's visiting tonight, so that's nice, isn't it?' Agnes gave several loud barks." (OoP p. 452 UK Ed). I can't help being suspicious when Rowling reveals small details about new, seemingly insignificant characters. Agnes has a son... And everyone else in that ward is counted for; we know who they are. Agnes is the only one so far who hasn't been pinned to the map... She reminds me strongly of Mark Evans who also was just mentioned in passing with a few, nice little details like his name and age. We know Agnes's first name only (why omit her last name, Rowling?), and that she has a SON... Also, from the way the Healer is talking to Agnes, one gets the impression Agnes is not being visited by her son or anyone else very often ('See? Not forgotten, are you?') If Snape's her son, the reason for him not getting to visit her that often could be that he most of the time is tied up at Hogwarts (and busy in the Order). Also, maybe Agnes's condition explains why Snape is one of the best Potion masters there is? Having an incurable mother on your hands is quite a strong motivation for delving into the exact art and subtle science of potions, isn't it? Maybe he has worked for years and years to find a potion to help his mother get well... My theory is that even though Snape loves his mother dearly, his worst fear would be for someone (like Harry) to find out about his mother's condition; it would be extremely humiliating (Hm. Just notice how Snape resents "dogs" and dog-like creatures like Sirius and Remus :-). So my guess is that one of Snape's three worst memories has something to do with his barking mother... Anyone? Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 29 00:06:20 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:06:20 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89858 Sue wrote: It has always seemed odd to me that Voldemort never refers to Crouch Jr. by name, only as "my faithful servant". It leaves the door open, IMO, for the people in those empty positions to be different than we assume. The "Dark Lord's" servant is not specifically named in the prophecy made by Trelawney in PoA either. Berit replies: Well, Voldemort practically says Crouch Jr's name without actually saying it: Quote: "He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived tonight." I don't think there can be much doubt that "the faithful servant" is none other than Crouch Jr. He was the one that made sure Harry's name was put into the Goblet of Fire, he made sure Harry made it to the end of the Triwizard Tournament, he was the one who turned the Cup into a portkey... As to the two other missing places in Voldemort's DE circle, I agree they can be open for other people than Snape and Karkaroff. It's true that Trelawney doesn't mention Pettigrew by name in her prophecy, but both Harry and Dumbledore (PoA p. 310-311 UK Ed) seems to believe he is the servant Trelawney prophesized would help Voldemort back to power. They could be wrong of course :-) Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 29 01:07:52 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:07:52 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89859 -Neri: > But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more > major characters. I merely asked: what for? Because it's been prophesied that Voldemort will rise again, "greater and more terrible than ever he was," (PoA ch 16). What was so terrible about Voldemort was that the people who tried to stop him died "horribly" and "no one ever lived once he decided ter kill 'em." (PS/SS ch 4.) JKR has to maintain our sense that the characters' lives are in jeopardy and that Voldemort is a serious threat. Consider that if Sirius hadn't died, the DE's attack on the DoM would have been sheer buffoonery. Lupin's little speech in OOP ch 9 about how Molly shouldn't worry because "it isn't like last time" when the Order was being picked off one by one gives me the heeby-jeebies. Two of the Order, Podmore and Sirius, have been picked off already and the war hasn't even gotten under way. Pippin From abbet69 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 19:35:12 2004 From: abbet69 at yahoo.com (abbet69 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:35:12 -0000 Subject: Snape a great teacher? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89860 Could the reason DD doesn't want to give Snape the DADA job is just because DD doesn't want to lose a great Potions teacher. Yes Snape's a bit uptight, but if you don't pay careful attention to what you're doing you can easily posion yourself or someone elses. Abbet From dk59us at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 20:43:50 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (dk59us) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:43:50 -0000 Subject: Deaths in Tolkien and Rowling was Re: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89861 Andrew wrote: > My I draw your thoughts, to a famous childrens > book, written many years ago, in a less free > society. This book, as it happens, is named The > Hobbit. There is tons of killing in that book, > villagers, spiders, and main character dwarves. > Is it impossible that JKR may kill of main > charactars, no. Neri answers: > A more relevant example may be LOTR, with a > full-scale war and a very high body count. I can > recall the death of only one major character in LOTR > (Boromir, of course. Theoden was hardly a major > character in the book, as opposed to the movies), and > again with a very good moral. > > But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more > major characters. I merely asked: what for? Now Eustace__Scrubb: Both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings contain bloody battles resulting in the deaths of major characters: Thorin Oakenshield in the former (along with his kinsmen Fili and Kili, if I recall correctly), Boromir and Theoden in The Lord of the Rings. I'd have to say that Theoden is at least as important a character in the book as he has been in the Peter Jackson films. All of these deaths are reminiscent of the Icelandic Sagas that Tolkien loved, with the heroes (again, like those in the sagas, tragically flawed or doomed in some way) dying only after suffering numerous wounds (or in Theoden's case, crushed by his frantic steed). All three speak to one or more of their comrades before dying and their speeches help to establish the "moral" or purpose for their deaths. Thorin reconciles with Bilbo; Boromir explains the madness that overtook him and is assured by Aragorn that the brave defense of the hobbits made up for that fault; Theoden tells Merry that, having kept faith and ridden to the aid of Gondor, he can die with honor and not be ashamed in the "mighty company" of his predecessor Kings. Of course there _are_ many hundreds of other deaths in both books, which Tolkien does not focus on. There are also numerous deaths of bad guys (Great Goblin, trolls, Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, "ruffians") and we can find parallels in JKR's works (Quirrel, Crouch Jr. {is he dead? or just soul-less? is there a ward at St. Mungo's for those whose heart beats even though they are soul-dead?}) How does this relate to Rowling's works? Well, I would argue that only the deaths of Sirius and possibly Cedric qualify as the deaths of major characters (on the side of the good guys). Sirius is the only character thus far who has played an important role in more than one of the books and has died. Cedric seemed like a perfectly good fellow, but really his primary impact on Harry lies in the fact that Harry was present when he died. (I would say "saw him die" but without GOF at hand I seem to recall that Harry heard the killing curse spoken, heard Cedric's body hit the ground and then saw his lifeless body. This must have been discussed at length in a thestral thread sometime.) But in any case, both of these deaths are quite unlike those in Tolkien. Sudden, quick, no time for dying speeches or assurances of meaning. It is left for the survivors to decide what, if any, meaning the death had. Although it is true that Cedric's death leaves Harry with a choice--whether or not to try to honor the request of Cedric's ghost and risk his own life to bring the body back to Hogwarts. Which gets back to the regular theme that Rowling's books are, with a very few exceptions, told from Harry's immediate point of view--in these cases the point of view of a boy in his mid-teens. The Hobbit is told mostly from Bilbo's immediate point of view (that of an adult hobbit), but LOTR is an epic told either by many different voices depending on the place and time or by a detached authorial voice that pieces it all together. In Rowling's books we need to ask, how do these deaths affect Harry? In LOTR, we don't ask how do these deaths affect Frodo (except in some objective strategic way), who is unaware of them until much later and never even met Theoden. I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying that readers should judge these and potential future deaths in the HP series by how they shape Harry's character in the conflict with Voldemort as it reaches a conclusion. And just as an OT aside, what would Tolkien have thought if there had been "groups" of readers ca. 1954-55 rabidly discussing the merits of killing off various characters between the publications of the 3 volumes of LOTR? I bet there would have been threads titled "Gandalf--gone for good?," "Was Boromir's death necessary?" "Time Travel: Sam-is-Gandalf" and "Is Frodo the real Ringbearer?" The world of writing, publishing and reading has certainly changed a lot in 50 years. Eustace_Scrubb From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 28 23:58:27 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:58:27 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89862 I am curious about the Weasley family history. In CoS Lucius Malfoy says to Mr. Weasley "Associating with muggles, and I thought your family could sink no lower." (I do not have my book in front of me so the exact quote.) If it isn't "muggles" then why are they low? Sirius refers to the family as "blood traitors" in OotP and Mrs. Black is also constantly shreiking the same insult. What makes a "blood traitor"? Malfoy's comment makes me wonder if perhaps there is something in the Weasley family's past which causes them to be disparaged by the rest of the "pure blood" group that we are not yet privy to. I find it interesting that Arthur is the HEAD of a department, if he is incompetent (which I doubt) why not just never promote him? I am sure there are 50 year old Jr. Assisstants floating around the ministry. It seems to me that there must have been other Weasleys in the Ministry and Arthur (and all the rest of the Weasleys for that matter) might be paying the price for something someone did long ago. Perhaps..."Oh and this is a portrait of ****** Weasley, the most unpopular Minister of Magic in history." Any ideas? Sue (Who desperately wants Mrs. Weasley to survive so that at least one mother gets to see her grandchildren!) From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 00:11:12 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:11:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89863 Berit wrote: Snip > Also, maybe Agnes's condition explains why > Snape is one of the best Potion masters there > is? Having an incurable mother on your hands > is quite a strong motivation for delving into > the exact art and subtle science of potions, > isn't it? Maybe he has worked for years and > years to find a potion to help his mother get > well... My theory is that even though Snape > loves his mother dearly, his worst fear would > be for someone (like Harry) to find out about > his mother's condition; it would be extremely > humiliating (Hm. Just notice how Snape resents > "dogs" and dog-like creatures like Sirius and > Remus :-). So my guess is that one of Snape's > three worst memories has something to do with > his barking mother... I'll bite. What if Snape is the one who invented the Wolfsbane potion in an attempt to help his poor yelping mum and instead it wound up helping someone he hates (Lupin). How is that for irony. Maybe Agnes is related to the Lovegoods and Luna's mother is her sister making Snape Luna's uncle and they were all working together to try and solve some horrible family curse that effects only the women and it will be NEVILLE who saves them all by discovering a new use for the stinksap from his Mimbulus mimbletonia. I like this one! Not only does it make Snape simpathetic but it puts Neville in a position of being smarter and better than the big nosed bat. Sue, who may have let her opinion of Snape show for the first time. From frost_indri at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 01:49:02 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:49:02 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89864 lizvega2: > My New Clues book talks a little about the Mimbulus Mimbletonia ( I > know I spelled that wrong, sorry), and it says something a long the > lines of 'Mimbulus Mimbletonia' meaning 'mimble wimble'- in some > fashion <>> > Neville accidentally sprays stinksap on himself, Harry, Ginny, and > Luna in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the way to > school. Later, in the MOM the only ones who aren't seriously hurt > are Neville, Ginny, Luna, and Harry. Is the plant some sort of protection device? If, so, is it too much > of a coincidence that Uncle Vernon said 'mimble wimble' and Dudley > was only given a tail moments later? > > Am I crazy? Or is there something else here? Frost: Well, I'm not going to argue your sanity, 'cause you might as well be crazy. BUt as for your theory... It could be, but then, that would imply that a spoken spell by Uncle Vernon worked to protect his son. IE, Uncle Vernon would be the Hidden Wizard. WHich would be very very funny. Really, he is the sort of person that, if he were to cause something wierd to happen in a moment of stress when his rather latent magic appeared, he would be very good at convinceing himself of a very reasonable non-magic explination. That also might be a reason that he thought he could squash the magic out of Harry. Interesting idea. Frost From kking0731 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 01:22:38 2004 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:22:38 -0500 Subject: time-turner thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89865 It appears to me that DD knows just a little too much by the way he directs Harry through each book as if knowing that hell need the invisibility cloak, the mirror of Erised and the Ford Anglia (I think) to name a few. Hes always on top of things as if he has already seen it happen and can steer Harry into or away from situations at the right time. Its almost like Hermione when her and Harry used the time-turner, she would say you cant go now because remember we come out right now. To me its as if DD has already seen these events and has twisted time to assure that those who have died at the hand of V can be saved. DD cant tell anyone (till after the result) or he would mess up time. All must exist as though it really is happening. Some people possibly being prompted or persuaded (as in Snapes case?) to more or less change their ways to benefit DDs ultimate plan. I dont think that DD could have seen everything that happened in the past even if he was there before, but he most likely would know the outcome and be able to advert it if necessary to his advantage. If ultimately one or two people could be reformed, by using a time device, it could have a much different outcome than would have or had yet to come. There could also be the possibility that DD turned the time-turner the other way? Has already seen what could have happened and also influenced people to his favor as best he could, again without telling anyone. Theres just so much about time especially in the DoM. I think Im going Mad waiting for the 6th book, what say you? Kathy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 02:50:27 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:50:27 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89866 Hitomi, Carol and Pippin had somewhat similar responses, so I'm combining posts. But first, maybe I should make my main points clearer: 1. Main characters in books are not killed just like that. They are killed only for a good reason. 2. JKR killed Cedric and Sirius so the reader would feel that no character, not even Harry, is safe, and she apparently achieved this goal. 3. In a sample of several fantasy/children books with BIG wars in them, the average number of *main* characters Killed In Action is around 1 (one). 4. Based on the above, a reasonable prediction is that we are going to see many *secondary* characters killed in books 6 and 7, but no main character killed (or one at the most). Carol wrote: JKR has said straight out that there will be more deaths and that some of them will be "favorite characters." Neri answers: Was the "favorite characters" part of the death warning that turned out to be Sirius? I believe that this announcement was well calculated to make the most out of Sirius' death, so while reading OotP for the first time, the reader will feel that any character is in imminent danger. This ploy, like many of JKR's devious ploys, was a major success, as evident by the number and variety of death predictions in HPGU. So I don't see any reason to kill more main characters and I would not be surprised if, by the end of the series, Sirius is the most "favorite character" killed. Carol: In any case, as someone else has said, the war is about to begin, and war means deaths--fortunately not on the scale of LOTR, much less real wars like WWI or II, but deaths, nevertheless. And they won't all be bad guys or minor characters. And Hitomi: She continually compares LV to Hitler in interviews, and everyone knows how many people died needlessly in that war. All I'm saying is that it would be entirely unrealistic if she didn't kill off more characters And Pippin: Because it's been prophesied that Voldemort will rise again, "greater and more terrible than ever he was," (PoA ch 16). What was so terrible about Voldemort was that the people who tried to stop him died "horribly" and "no one ever lived once he decided ter kill 'em." (PS/SS ch 4.) JKR has to maintain our sense that the characters' lives are in jeopardy and that Voldemort is a serious threat. Consider that if Sirius hadn't died, the DE's attack on the DoM would have been sheer buffoonery. Neri answers: Yes, in order to maintain realism, many people should die. But I still don't see any special reason why any of them should be one of the *main* characters. Just to illustrate the point, suppose Kingsley and Diggle would have died in the DoM instead of Sirius. I don't think the DE's attack would have looked like a sheer buffoonery in such a case. Hitomi: what with over half the Order having been murdered last time Neri: Well, maybe Harry will be the one who made the difference this time around. But I won't be surprised if several *secondary* characters from the Order will die. Hitomi: Sirius's death was tragic, sudden, almost unreal and unmoving in its suddeness, not to mention inexplicaple. It was realistic, because that's how a lot of deaths are, especially during war There doesn't have to be a reason why she should kill anymore major characters. Because when someone dies, we never understand the reasons anyway. Neri: This is fiction, not realty. In fiction (or at least in *good* fiction) things don't happen without reason, most certainly not something important such as the death of a main character. If JKR wanted to kill Sirius in order to convey the arbitrariness of death in real life, then this was the reason for Sirius' death, and it was a good reason. But together with Cedric's death (which was similarly sudden) I think the readers got that point, so there is no need to kill more *main* characters for this. I think the HP series is quite dark already. Harry's parents were murdered when he was a baby, he had to recall this murder again several times, and now he had lost Sirius too. The ancient House of Black is no more. Neville parents were tortured to insanity. The whole WW, in fact, still carries deep scars from the first war, and now lives in fear from the second round. This series doesn't require more deaths of loved characters. Pippin: Lupin's little speech in OOP ch 9 about how Molly shouldn't worry because "it isn't like last time" when the Order was being picked off one by one gives me the heeby-jeebies. Two of the Order, Podmore and Sirius, have been picked off already and the war hasn't even gotten under way. And Hitomi: DD or one of the Weasleys dying wouldn't surprise me in the least; and I expect some of the lesser-known Order members to die. Harry dying wouldn't surprise me. Neri: I rest my case. JKR is nothing if not unpredictable :-) Spoiler warning for: The Hobbit, LOTR, Ender's Game, the Dark Materials series, the Sally Lockhart series (and no, this is *not* OT) * * * * * * * * * * * * * Carol: Three of the dwarves in "The Hobbit" are killed, at least one of whom (Thorin) is a major character. Neri: Yes, this fits my estimation: about one *main* character killed. Hitomi: As far as LOTR goes, Frodo, Elrond, Gandalf, etc. sail away into the Grey Havens. That's death, just a very peaceful death. And Carol: I think that for Tolkien, having to leave Middle Earth, as Frodo does, is sadder than dying. Neri: I think this is a matter of interpretation. I personally felt it was considerably better than dying, or why would Elrond have any problem with his daughter staying with Aragorn, and why had so many men in the history of middle earth wanted to reach the Gray Havens? In any case, this happened in a sort of epilog, a considerable time (I don't remember how many years) after the war itself. If JKR will have DD surviving the war, and tell us in her epilog that 5 years later he went peacefully to his next adventure, this is not like being KIA. In over 1000 pages of a major war, Tolkien had 1 (one) main character on the side of good KIA, and with all the many deaths of secondary characters this was quite enough to maintain realism. Hitomi: And when I thought of other children's books I read that contained death, Ender's Game immediately came to mind, along with Madeleine L'Engle's and Philip Pullman's works. Ender kills two boys in that book (one at the age of six, which was technically manslaughter, and one at nine in self-defense), not to mention he massacres an entire species at the end of the novel (he didn't know what he was doing). L'Engle has characters die in her books, and Pullman killed Frederick in the Sally Lockhart series, and lots of people in the Dark Materials trilogy (I hated the way Amber Spyglass ended). So, it's not uncommon. Neri: IIRC, in Ender's game none of the *main* characters died. The "Dark Materials" trilogy (I also hated the ending!) was indeed exceptionally dark. I seem to recall it actually had 2 main characters KIA. I did not read the Sally Lockhart series and Madeleine L'Engle's (and now they are spoiled for me, the proper punishment for my sins, I guess :-) Carol: BTW, Tolkien considered having Pippin die "doing something brave" and changed his mind, instead having him "grow" both literally and figuratively. I think that will happen to the characters in the HP series as well, especially Harry, Ron, and Neville. I agree with you that none of them needs to die, though they will certainly make sacrifices. Neri: Thanks for this interesting information about Pippin. I didn't know about it but it fits my thoughts exactly. Killing a good character is the easy way out. It is much more challengeable and rewarding to let him/her grow. Neri, who hopes this makes some of the people around here less depressed. From jayala at nyc.rr.com Thu Jan 29 02:35:18 2004 From: jayala at nyc.rr.com (jayalajayala) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:35:18 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans Mark Equal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Like everyone else, I'm wondering who Mark Evans is, and what > purpose he will serve in the upcoming books. > > The line from the prophesy goes: "And he will mark him as his equal" > > I don't know if any of the words in the prophesy were changed > between the US/UK editions, but if the word 'mark' is stationary, it > seems an odd choice from Jo. Not curse him, brand him, or hex him, > but "MARK" him as his equal. jayalajayala: >From looking at the subject of the message I was struck that the name Evans may be a play on the word even. One of the definitions for even is: a. Equal or identical in degree, extent, or amount: Use even amounts of butter and sugar. b. Equally matched or balanced: an even fight. c. Just; fair: an even bargain. d. Having nothing due on either side; square: If we each take half, then we'll be even. e. Having exacted full revenge. Mark Evans = mark evens = mark equal As in "And he will mark him as his equal" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 04:23:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:23:42 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89868 > In Response to Sue's post Carol responded (in part): > > In other words, I'm arguing that Snape couldn't have been in the > > graveyard and must be the one who "has left us forever," but I agree > > with you that he's dealing primarily with Malfoy and not with LV > > directly. But with Malfoy in Azkaban, that situation has to change, > > and Snape's danger is almost certain to increase in the next two > > books. > > Thanks for the response Carol. I completely agree with you. > Unfortunately I wrote my post before I read yours. I am, however, > still curious about JKR's decision to omit the names of the 6 DE's > missing from the circle. She (or Voldemort) named all of the > others, including some who had been killed: > > "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my > service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I > believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...and one, > who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered > my service." (GOF pg 651 US hardback ed.) > > It has always seemed odd to me that Voldemort never refers to Crouch > Jr. by name, only as "my faithful servant". It leaves the door open, > IMO, for the people in those empty positions to be different than we > assume. The "Dark Lord's" servant is not specifically named in the > prophacy made by Trelawny in PoA either. Because JKR uses > misinformation and leads us to a conclusion that is not necessarily > correct throughout her stories, it just strikes me that these > omissions may also be purposeful. > > Anything strike you? > > Sue (Who loves reading your posts and is repeatedly getting in > trouble for not snipping enough. I hope I behaved this time!) Carol: Thank you! I've been feeling guilty for spending so much time posting when I should be doing other things. Now I feel much better--still guilty but somehow justified or vindicated. :-) At any rate, I think there are two reasons for the missing names. One, as you say, is JKR herself not wanting us to be too certain in our conclusions--making us wonder and wait (and making some of us at least agonize over Snape ;-) ). And yet I really don't see how the one who has left forever and the one who is too cowardly to return could be anyone other than Snape and Karkaroff or the faithful servant anyone but Barty, Jr. (I'll probably get some arguments on this, but that's par for the course here.) The other reason, IMO, is that Voldemort doesn't want his Death Eaters to know too much, especially not his "slippery friend Lucius," who may be in his inner circle but whom he would be stupid to trust because he's devious and primarily concerned with his own self-interest. That's probably why LV avoids naming certain people. He has only one "faithful servant" (Crouch!Moody) and even he isn't privy to all of LV's secrets (he's been in Azkaban or under an Imperius curse since he was nineteen. How much can he know?) And LV is not going to reveal his secrets, including the identity of that "faithful servant" and the two missing DEs (Snape and Karkaroff) in front of people who have already denied him by pretending to have been under an Imperius curse during VWI. As for the three that have died in his service Wilkes, Rosier, and ??), I guess he didn't see the point of naming people who can't help him now. (He didn't name a lot of the people who were in Azkaban, either--only the Lestranges, meaning either Bellatrix and Rodolphus or Rodolphus and Rabastan. One Lestrange got left out; so did Dolohov and a lot of others whose names I can't think of right now.) But notice that LV also passes over some of the Death Eaters who are present in the graveyard: "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence" (GoF Am. ed. 651). It seems to me that he's concealing their identities, too--or maybe by omitting them, he's leaving room for speculation by the other DEs about the identities of the coward, the faithful servant, and the one who has left forever. (It's not a matter of "Well, he didn't name Snape, so he must be one of the three.") So my question now is, who are these other people whose names he isn't giving? Ludo Bagman? Narcissa Malfoy? One of the members of the Order who showed up at the Dursleys' in OoP? I just don't know, but that's the omission I think will be important. Carol P.S. Can anyone think of the name of the Death Eater, other than Wilkes and Rosier, who died in Voldemort's service? Not that it's important. I'm just curious. C. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 04:40:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:40:22 -0000 Subject: Did Harry See Lily Die? (Was: Neville's Role) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89869 > > ElfunDeb: > > > > No, I believe that Harry saw nothing of Lily's murder, for a couple > of reasons. > > > > First, if Harry had seen Lily die, he should have seen the thestrals > > his first year at Hogwarts. ...edited... > > > > The second reason is that the memories that the Dementors bring to > > the surface are only audio memories. ...edited... Either way, I > > don't think Harry saw either the murder or a dead body. > > > > Debbie > > > bboy_mn: > > My impressions of the event- > 1.) It was nighttime. > 2.) Lily and Harry were upstair. > > So, if I start with those assumptions, what can I conclude? What would > a baby be doing upstairs at night? ...Sleeping perhaps, or at least in > bed? > > Extending that assumption, what kind of bed would the baby be in? > Bed, bassinet, crib, or cradle? > > Putting a baby in a bed is never safe, so that's out. Given the > somewhat out-of-date world that wizards live in, I can only assume > they used a bassinet (a large wicker basket like baby bed) or a > cradle. The cage-like crib seems a little too modern, and doesn't fit > with other representations of 'baby containment devices' I've seen in > movies and photos that are representative of this apparent point in > historical time. > > Conclusion, a bassinet or cradle has high solid sides, and would have > given Harry a very very limited view of the room. > > This is compounded by wondering whether a 15 month old is capable of > processing the information sufficiently for it to sink in. Is a baby > capable of sufficiently processing the event to allow him to see the > Thestrals? Personally, I don't think so. > > I know that doesn't add much to the discussion, but I think the basic > logistics make it unlikely that Harry saw, or saw with any awareness, > his mother die. Carol: One very small point. A bassinette is used for a tiny baby of three months or less, not for a toddler of fifteen months. In the RW, a baby that age would be in a crib (too young for a regular bed). In the WW, he might be in a cradle. Either way, his mother could stand in front of it and block him, though not very effectively. (I always pictured him as being in her arms, but I admit it would be hard to shield him that way.) Regardless, it does seem likely that he was asleep and I agree with you that a fifteen-month-old baby wouldn't be able to understand that his mother was dead even if he were awake. But notice that Harry remembers only one flash of bright green light, the one that gave him the scar, not two. And until he encounters the dementors, he doesn't even remember screaming, much less words. So I think that JKR's comment that he didn't "process" his mother's death is accurate whether he saw it or not. Another thing that I've just thought of. Notice that he progressively learns more about his parents' deaths. First he learns that they didn't die in a car crash; they were murdered by LV. Then he hears screams, then his mother's words, then his father's words. Then the order of their deaths (James first, then Lily) is confirmed by the Priori Incantatem spell in GoF. It seems likely that he'll *see* what happened in Book 6 or 7, either in a dream or in the Pensieve if he can somehow learn to pull a memory out of his own head. After all, the Pensieve has been introduced, but it has yet to play the crucial role that could play, and it has yet to show us one of Harry's memories. I'm betting it's that one. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 04:45:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:45:59 -0000 Subject: O.W.L.s and how they're calculated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89870 "Ali" wrote: > > > I am still unsure how Barty Crouch Junior could have got 12 O.W.L.s, > > and a possible explanation is awarding 2 grades per subject. But, > > then 12 O.W.L.s would not be such a terrific achievement: > > > Christy's thoughts: > > It seems to me that Barty's 12 is possible, and it does seem to make > some sense, with the 2 OWL system. > > We know that all the students take DADA, Charms, Transfiguration, > History of Magic, Astronomy, Potions and Herbology. If you add up > these possible OWLS (counting 2 where there is a practical and written > exam) you get 12 OWLS all students would take. Carol: Just a note that has nothing to do with calculating the O.W.L.S. Barty Jr. isn't the only one to get twelve O.W.L.s. Bill and Percy Weasley did, too. It seems like the highest possible score--certainly the highest we've heard mentioned, and Bill and Percy were both Head Boys, probably at least in part because of those impressive O.W.L.scores.Of course, Hermione will probably prove me wrong and get thirteen. . . . Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 04:52:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:52:58 -0000 Subject: Peeves; was:Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" > wrote: > > Trelawney > > Snape > > Flitwick > > Firenze > > Hagrid > > McGonagall? Sprout? Pomfrey? Vector? Filch? > > Now AmanitaMuscaria writes: I certainly agree with you that Hogwarts > appears to be a home for castouts, waifs and strays who are in need > of refuge and protection. > Witness Dobby and Winky within canon. > But what about the joker in the pack? I know we can't say very much > about Peeves, as we've not been given much info about him. But he's > impossible, disruptive, chaotic. There MUST be some reason why > Dumbledore allows him to stay? And I suspect channeling the > suppressed aggression of pubescent girls isn't it. > There's no reference of him in the brief glimpses we've had of Tom's > schooldays and Dippett's headmastership, so presumably his residency > is fairly recent (in wizarding terms). > I don't know why he's there, but I reckon he's got to be important. Carol: I thought the same thing recently when I reread Fleur's comment in GoF that a poltergeist wouldn't have been allowed in Beauxbatons. I know we can't always take a character's word as fact, but I think she's right in this. I can't see Madame Maxime tolerating Peeves for a moment. I'm not even sure that Karkaroff (if he were still headmaster) would allow him in Durmstrang. (Too frivolous, and we're deadly serious about the Dark Arts here, thank you.) So it does seem as if Peeves is yet another outcast that DD has taken under his wing. Too bad he and Filch can't recognize and appreciate the similarity of their respective positions. :-) Carol From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Jan 29 04:54:31 2004 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:54:31 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89872 Sue wrote: > Malfoy's comment makes me wonder if perhaps there is something in the > Weasley family's past which causes them to be disparaged by the rest > of the "pure blood" group that we are not yet privy to. Of the pureblood families we've been introduced to, the Weasleys seem to be the only family that does not hold to the pureblood-is-better mantra. Of course, there are a few individuals in other families, but not entire families. And we've been given no indication that either Molly or Arthur are rebelling against their own families by holding these opinions. So I'd say the simple fact that they (the Weasley family both current and past) hold to a different ideology is enough to earn the disparagement. > I find it > interesting that Arthur is the HEAD of a department, if he is > incompetent (which I doubt) why not just never promote him? I am > sure there are 50 year old Jr. Assisstants floating around the > ministry. Well, it's not like he is busily managing many underlings in a highly productive branch. He is the boss of one other person, in a department that most of the Ministry feels is worth little thought or money. I don't know how British government jobs function, but in the US most come with a few automatic promotions; one has to be pretty abysmal in order to lose these promotions. The Wizarding World may be horribly prejudiced, but not to the point that "he likes Muggles" would justify denying that sort of promotion (especially in that particular department). As it is, Arthur has reached the highest position he can in his branch, so no justification is needed to keep him there. With years of experience dealing with Muggle-related business only, it would be very difficult for him to make a lateral move even without people trying to keep where he is; with those people such a move is pretty much impossible. Unless he quits the Ministry altogether, he's stuck right where he is. So overall, I disagree that Arthur needed any family history (either good or bad) to reach the position he has. It fits perfectly with his own abilities and opinions. -Corinth From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Jan 29 05:15:48 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:15:48 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Thestrals (Re: Did Harry See Lily Die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "makemeatree" wrote: > We know that Harry saw something of his mother's death because we > know from the very first book that he has memories of a green light > and screaming. It's right there in the first book. He saw > *something*. He was there, and it is firmly embedded in his memory. He does have those memories, and the paragraph states that he supposed that was the memory of his parents' death, but I believe it's a memory of Voldemort's attempt on Harry's life and not Lily's death. The key is that the memory is of "a blinding flash of green light and a burning pain on his forehead." The pain in his forehead was inflicted by the AK that rebounded off Harry. And, I agree with Steve's assumption that Harry was likely in his bed/crib/cradle at the time and did not have a direct view of Lily. > Why then couldn't he see the thestrals? The answer also lies in the > first book: Harry thought for all those years that his parents died > in a car crash. If he completely remembered his mother's death, he > wouldn't have believed for all that time that she had died in a car > crash. But the same would be true if he didn't see the death at all. They're just alternative explanations of the same set of facts. The other examples of people who can see thestrals- Harry > post cedric, Luna, and Neville- weren't babies when they saw the > deaths they claim give them the ability to see the thestrals. I may > be wrong on that, since I don't have OotP, but if I recall, Luna > mentions the age she was when he mother died, and it was young, but > not a baby. I don't believe Neville gives an age, but, judging by the > way he talks about it, as well as who it was (his grandfather), he > couldn't have been a baby, either. There's no evidence at all to tell us how old Neville was when his grandfather died. There's no reason he couldn't have been a baby, and in fact the original speculation that he might have been killed by DEs either before Voldemort was vaporized or during the attack on Neville's parents, started because Neville hesitated before revealing that he'd seen his grandfather die, almost as if he didn't really remember it. Debbie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 05:20:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:20:22 -0000 Subject: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89874 With regard to the vampire essay, koinoinia quotes: > 'Well!' said Lupin, clapping his hands together and looking around > cheerfully. 'That seems to clear that up!' Severus, I'll take this > back, shall I?' He folded the map and tucked it inside his > robes. "Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire > essay. Excuse us, Severus.' > PoA/Ch 14/pg 213/UK > 4/pg 77/US Carol responds: I've had my say on why I don't think the vampire essay (though it was assigned) has anything to do with Snape (we've had a werewolf; we don't need a vampire), but there's something else intriguing about that quote. Lupin says, "I'll take that back, shall I?" and tucks the map into his pocket. When has it been in his possession since the time Filch confiscated it twenty or so years before? It was in the twins' possession, then Harry's, and now Snape has confiscated it. He doesn't trust Lupin, yet he lets him take it without question or objection. Does he suspect, or even know, that Lupin is one of the makers? Why, when he sees the nicknames of the four makers (all of whom insult him) does he immediately call for Lupin? Does he know those four nicknames from the past? Or is he just so quick on the uptake that he immediately figures out that four troublemakers, one of whom is named Moony, must be Lupin, James, Sirius, and Peter? He doesn't know (yet) that it's a map, but he does suspect it of being useful to Harry. Why, if Snape distrusts Lupin, let him take the parchment, whatever it is, when there's a chance he might give it back to Harry. We know that Lupin is acting in this scene, pretending not to know what the parchment is or who the makers are. But is Snape acting, too? Is he playing along, knowing at the very least who the makers are, guessing that it's a map (he knows Harry has sneaked into Hogsmeade), calling Lupin in as the supposed authority on the Dark Arts (shades of Lockhart and the CoS), and then letting Lupin take the parchment "back"? Are Snape and Lupin in this together? Carol From erinellii at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 05:30:57 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (erinellii) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89875 > Carol: > > P.S. Can anyone think of the name of the Death Eater, other than > Wilkes and Rosier, who died in Voldemort's service? Not that it's > important. I'm just curious. C. Erin: I checked the Lexicon, and didn't see any more dead DEs other than Regulus Black, who was killed on LV's orders. Apparently no other names have been given. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 05:37:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:37:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89876 -> Mandy wrote: > > There's also Snape's mum. We don't know if she is alive or dead, but > we do have the impression she was treated badly by his dad. > > Berit replies: > > I don't know if this has been brought up at this forum before, but > has anyone wondered whether Agnes might be Snape's mother? In the > long-term(!) residents' ward at St. Mungo's there are five patients: > Lockhart, Bode, Neville's parents and Agnes: > > Quote: "Two beds along was a woman whose entire head was covered in > fur; > 'Here you are, Agnes,' said the Healer brightly to the furry-faced > woman, handing her a small pile of Christmas presents. 'See, not > forgotten, are you? And your son's sent an owl to say he's visiting > tonight, so that's nice, isn't it?' > Agnes gave several loud barks." (OoP p. 452 UK Ed). > > I can't help being suspicious when Rowling reveals small details > about new, seemingly insignificant characters. Agnes has a son... And > everyone else in that ward is counted for; we know who they are. >If Snape's > her son, the reason for him not getting to visit her that often could > be that he most of the time is tied up at Hogwarts (and busy in the > Order). > > Also, maybe Agnes's condition explains why Snape is one of the best > Potion masters there is? Having an incurable mother on your hands is > quite a strong motivation for delving into the exact art and subtle > science of potions, isn't it? Maybe he has worked for years and years > to find a potion to help his mother get well... My theory is that > even though Snape loves his mother dearly, his worst fear would be > for someone (like Harry) to find out about his mother's condition; it > would be extremely humiliating (Hm. Just notice how Snape > resents "dogs" and dog-like creatures like Sirius and Remus :-). So > my guess is that one of Snape's three worst memories has something to > do with his barking mother... > > Anyone? > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html We did have an Agnes thread some time back--in November or December, I think, so it will take forever to find it using the search function. It started with someone thinking that Snape wearing his traveling cloak and being in a hurry to go somewhere important after he tells Harry about the occlumency lessons might mean that he was going to visit his mother on the closed ward. When we realized that the son was scheduled to visit his mother on the evening of Christmas Day and that the traveling cloak incident occurred at the end of Christmas vacation, we dropped the thread. I tried to hunt for the post, but with the Search function malfunctioning, it would take me an hour at least. If you're interested and have the time, you might look for it. Or maybe the person who had the idea will post again. Interesting theory about the importance of potions to Snape, Berit. It could also tie in with his reasons for leaving the DEs. If they tried to turn his mother into a dog! Other people speculated that it might have something to do with the Longbottoms being aurors. I forget what the theory was, but I can't see the Longbottoms turning even a Dark Witch into a dog, and if there's a Dark Wizard in that family (before Severus joined the DEs), it's the father. I know I'm not making any sense; I just remember that we did discuss this possibility a few months long ago. (Are you sure you don't remember it, Berit? It was definitely before Christmas and possibly before Thanksgiving.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 05:43:40 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:43:40 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Sue wrote: > It has always seemed odd to me that Voldemort never refers to Crouch > Jr. by name, only as "my faithful servant". It leaves the door open, > IMO, for the people in those empty positions to be different than we > assume. > The "Dark Lord's" servant is not specifically named in the > prophecy made by Trelawney in PoA either. > > Berit replies: > > Well, Voldemort practically says Crouch Jr's name without actually > saying it: > Quote: "He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through > his efforts that our young friend arrived tonight." > > I don't think there can be much doubt that "the faithful servant" is > none other than Crouch Jr. He was the one that made sure Harry's name > was put into the Goblet of Fire, he made sure Harry made it to the > end of the Triwizard Tournament, he was the one who turned the Cup > into a portkey... The question now is, do the Death Eaters know what happened to the "faithful servant"? Do they even know who he was? (We do, and there's no ambiguity in LV's words for us, but do they? Does even LV know what happened to him?) Unless Snape, in his role as double agent, told Lucius Malfoy, I don't see how they *could* know. But one thing's certain. The "faithful servant" did not return. Thoughts, anybody? Carol From thren at subreality.com Thu Jan 29 05:53:43 2004 From: thren at subreality.com (Thren) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:53:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40189FE7.1090700@subreality.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89878 Carol: >We know that Lupin is acting in this scene, pretending not to know >what the parchment is or who the makers are. But is Snape acting, too? >Is he playing along, knowing at the very least who the makers are, >guessing that it's a map (he knows Harry has sneaked into Hogsmeade), >calling Lupin in as the supposed authority on the Dark Arts (shades of >Lockhart and the CoS), and then letting Lupin take the parchment "back"? > >Are Snape and Lupin in this together? > > Thren: Um.. yes? I thought it was pretty obvious from that whole scene that Snape knew if not exactly what the map was, then at least that it had helped Harry escape the school unnoticed. From the Pensieve scene we see that MWPP didn't exactly guard their nicknames, throwing them about in front of everyone like that. Rereading the whole scene, it's completely obvious they both know where it came from and were having this whole conversation trying to keep their true meaning secret from Harry. Calling Lupin in because it's "...supposed to be your area of expertise [...]" was a way to get him to come up with some answers without letting Harry know why. Consider, "You don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*" (emphasis not mine) Snape is accusing Lupin point-blank of giving the map to Harry (who has *no* clue what they're talking about). The only real slip up is that bit about taking the parchment 'back'. Obviously it makes perfect sense to Snape and Lupin, as they both know who it really belongs to (or at least who has the most claim to it), but it's also *our* giant clue that Lupin was one of these people. If Harry and Ron had more than two braincells between them, they'd have picked up on that fact as well. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 05:55:46 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:55:46 -0000 Subject: Deaths in Tolkien and Rowling was Re: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89879 Eustace__Scrubb wrote: > > Both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings contain bloody battles > resulting in the deaths of major characters Neri: Sorry I missed your post, but you may find that my answers to Hitomi, Carol and Pippin (#89866) also answer some of your thought. Eustace__Scrubb : I'd have to > say that Theoden is at least as important a character in the book as > he has been in the Peter Jackson films. Neri again: Measuring the importance of a character is somewhat subjective. But I think you agree that the importance of Boromir and Theoden in LOTR is more-or-less similar to the importance of Sirius and Cedric in HP, which is my point: if JKR kills any more important characters, she will be exceeding the butcher's bill of LOTR (at least with regard to main-characters-killed-in-action-on the-side-of-Good) > And just as an OT aside, what would Tolkien have thought if there had > been "groups" of readers ca. 1954-55 rabidly discussing the merits of > killing off various characters between the publications of the 3 > volumes of LOTR? I bet there would have been threads titled > "Gandalf--gone for good?," "Was Boromir's death necessary?" "Time > Travel: Sam-is-Gandalf" and "Is Frodo the real Ringbearer?" The > world of writing, publishing and reading has certainly changed a lot > in 50 years. Neri: Thanks! This one made my day. I could not stop laughing for 20 minutes at least. But after that it also made me think: even the great Tolkien was not above JKR-style devious tricks. Getting away with the resurrection of Gandalf without undermining his credibility was a major achievement. And getting Frodo and Sam alive out of Mount Doom on top of that, it only worked because he used the eagles from Bilbo's story. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, it is easy to finish off your characters. Much more difficult to make everybody sure they are dead, and then get them out alive without it being completely deus-ex-machina. And I'm not sure JKR is a writer of Tolkien's caliber, but she definitely has her bag of tricks. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 06:20:03 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:20:03 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frost_indri" wrote: > lizvega2: > > My New Clues book talks a little about the Mimbulus Mimbletonia ( > I > > know I spelled that wrong, sorry), and it says something a long > the > > lines of 'Mimbulus Mimbletonia' meaning 'mimble wimble'- in some > > fashion > <>> > > Neville accidentally sprays stinksap on himself, Harry, Ginny, and > > Luna in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the way to > > school. Later, in the MOM the only ones who aren't seriously hurt > > are Neville, Ginny, Luna, and Harry. > > Is the plant some sort of protection device? If, so, is it too much > > of a coincidence that Uncle Vernon said 'mimble wimble' and Dudley > > was only given a tail moments later? > > > > Am I crazy? Or is there something else here? > > Frost: > Well, I'm not going to argue your sanity, 'cause you might as well > be crazy. BUt as for your theory... > It could be, but then, that would imply that a spoken spell by > Uncle Vernon worked to protect his son. IE, Uncle Vernon would be > the Hidden Wizard. > WHich would be very very funny. > Really, he is the sort of person that, if he were to cause > something wierd to happen in a moment of stress when his rather > latent magic appeared, he would be very good at convinceing himself > of a very reasonable non-magic explination. That also might be a > reason that he thought he could squash the magic out of Harry. > > Interesting idea. Carol responds: I remember Uncle Vernon mumbling something that sounds to Harry like "mimble wimble," but I just checked and it's not in "The Keeper of the Keys" chapter of SS/PS. Maybe, come to think of it, it's in OoP, "Dudley Demented"? In any case, it's not something that Uncle Vernon mutters to protect his son. It's a reaction to something already done that he can't control and can hardly believe. BTW, besides the narrator's usual reference to the Dursleys as Muggles in chapter one, we have Hagrid calling Uncle Vernon "a great Muggle like you" and then explaining to Harry that "Muggle" is "what we call nonmagic folk like them. An' it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on" (33). There's no question that Vernon is a Muggle (even Dedalus Diggle calls him one), but people on this list have raised the possibility that Petunia, as Lily's sister, might be a squib. But surely Hagrid would know a Muggle when he saw one and would not mistake a squib for a Muggle? Professor McGonagall, though she doesn't use the word Muggle, does say to Dumbledore, "You *can't* mean the people who live *here*? . . . You couldn't find two people who are less like us. . . . Harry Potter come and live here!" (13)It's pretty clear to me that she also sees them as Muggles (and that her opinion of Muggles isn't very high). Just throwing that in because whatever "mimble wimble" might mean in the mouth of a wizard, when Vernon Dursely says it (if that's what he says and not just what Harry hears), it's just a whimper. Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 29 07:54:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:54:25 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > I remember Uncle Vernon mumbling something that sounds to Harry like > "mimble wimble," but I just checked and it's not in "The Keeper of the > Keys" chapter of SS/PS. Geoff: It is. "But Hagrid simply waved his hand and said, 'About our world, I mean. your world. My world. Yer parents' world.' 'What world?' HAgrid looked as if he was about to explod. 'DURSLEY', he boomed. Uncle Vernon, who had gone very pale, whispered something that sounded like 'Mimblewimble'." (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.41 UK edition) From valkyrievixen at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 11:13:59 2004 From: valkyrievixen at yahoo.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:13:59 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" wrote: I think it possible that McGonagall was married to > Voldemort, and furthermore, that she still is. > > Picture it... Riddle reveals his evil overlord plans to his new > bride, a young and innocent McGonagall. She is horrified, tells him > to "get out!" she goes back to her maiden name and tries to > forget him. She pours herself into her teaching. > > When Voldy does surface again, she is terrified to reveal her connection to him. > > This also explains why so few people know who Voldemort once was. > Dumbledore figured it out, and he is protecting Minerva by keeping > silent, and keeping her at Hogwarts. So... whadd'ya think? > > --Erin I think it's the most wonderful, and original, speculation I have read in absolutely ages, Erin. Thanks for giving me a good reason to delurk. Minerva's exceptional talent is well documented I could easily imagine her having been quite the prestigious trophy girl for Tom in his younger years. Love it very much. Good sleuthing Erin. Grinning Valky From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 11:30:06 2004 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (Regina Olshan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:30:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: <40189FE7.1090700@subreality.com> Message-ID: <20040129113006.49602.qmail@web11305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89883 I note also that Lupin got the boggart (for Harry to practice his Patronus spell on) in Filch's cabinet. Pretty clear he was looking through Filch's cabinet for the map, which he knew had been confiscated from the marauders by Filch... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Jan 29 12:03:46 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:03:46 -0000 Subject: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Not continued to scream. The implication is that he began again. So > his arm is perhaps getting badly burned. Hardly likely to be fatal > with Madam Pomfrey's abilities. > Kneasy: Largely irrelevant IMO. What was important is the effect on *Voldy* not Quirrell. Voldy was forced out, Quirrell's life support system vanishes. Geoff: > Add to that, who the dickens started the attack? Who tried to kill > him? Harry acted in self-defence and whatever happened to Quirrell - > whoever killed him and I maintain it was Voldemort - it's not Harry's > fault. Kneasy: Again, not really germane. A death in the act of self defence will still get a charge of manslaughter levelled at the defender in the UK. The court may decide that the actions were justified or reasonable but the responsibility for the death still lies with the accused even though he may not be considered *legally* culpable. (See news reports passim agitating for a change in the law.) It's probable that we may never agree on this, but that doesn't worry me; what does bother me is the fact that the main thrust of my post 89817 was the nature of the Tom/Voldy relationship, how it came to be and what the implications are. Much more interesting IMO than the niceties of moral or legal responsibility in regard to Quirrell. But no-one else seems to think so. From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 29 12:11:21 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:11:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89885 Carol wrote: We did have an Agnes thread some time back--in November or December. It started with someone thinking that Snape wearing his traveling cloak and being in a hurry to go somewhere important after he tells Harry about the occlumency lessons might mean that he was going to visit his mother on the closed ward. When we realized that the son was scheduled to visit his mother on the evening of Christmas Day and that the traveling cloak incident occurred at the end of Christmas vacation, we dropped the thread. Interesting theory about the importance of potions to Snape, Berit. It could also tie in with his reasons for leaving the DEs. If they tried to turn his mother into a dog! And if there's a Dark Wizard in that family (before Severus joined the DEs), it's the father. Berit replies: Come to think of it: Yes, I do recall a thread discussing whether Snape could have been the son visiting Agnes that evening. Thank you Carol for pointing that out. But as you say that particular speculation was a dead end. The fact that we don't see any direct canon evidence that Snape was draped in his travelling cloak the very same night is however no proof Snape couldn't still be Agnes's son. I'm looking at other clues; the fact that she is stated as having a son who visits her from time to time; + we conveniently don't know her surname (and Rowling rarely throws any characters into the story unless she wishes to tie them up to someone or something later on...). And Agnes's condition coppled with Snape's interest and above average skills in potions... I've also got a third point which I left out in my original post: Snape's cruelty to Neville! If Agnes is Snape's mother, and he has been visiting her from time to time at the ward; how likely do you think it is that Neville has stumbled across his humiliating secret? Neville is most probably visiting his parents every holiday. I believe it is unavoidable that he sooner or later would have run into Snape sitting at his mother's bedside. Even forgetful, fumbling Neville wouldn't fail to put two and two together and guess rightly about the connection between Snape and barking Agnes. I believe Snape is punishing Neville for knowing about his secret, like he is punishing Harry for being his father's son... It would be just in character for Snape! Also, his cruelty to Neville might be two-fold: Punishing him for knowing, but also being cruel just to frighten Neville into silence so he won't forget and slip the little secret of Snape's mother at St. Mungo's... As to how Agnes ended up at St. Mungo's I have no idea. But based on the abusive scene of Snape's father shouting at his cowering wife, I'd say it might be his father that hurt his wife so much the damage was permanent... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 02:59:27 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:59:27 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol wrote: > I originally thought as you do that the power was in Harry himself, > but JKR kept presenting new evidence that contradicted that > theory--first the Parseltongue that Harry acquired from LV when > some of LV's powers were passed to him, Whizbang here: I must be missing something. How does Harry's being a parselmouth or any skill aquired when Voldemort marked him an equal, suggest that Lily did a protective charm? The prophesy states that the one had the power as he approached, not that he aquired it later or as the result of someone else's action. The power to vanquish the DL is in Harry. It always has been. Whizbang _______________________________________________________ Carol wrote: > Again, no theory can be proven or it wouldn't be a theory, but > this one is interesting and there's enough canonical evidence to > support the possibility that Lily cast a protective charm on Harry. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Whizbang here: Somehow, the fact that Lily's wand was good for charms and the identification of the rune represented in the scar seem very thin canon to base this on. Knowing what we do about Harry, and Dumbledore's statement that he put the protective charm on Harry seem to contradict it. ================================================================ Carol wrote: > Also, you might consider that we don't know what powers Harry had > as a baby before LV "marked" him. ****************************************** Whizbang here: Harry had the power to vanquish the dark lord as he approached, before he was born. The prophesy should be taken into consideration in this theory. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carol wrote: > It seems to me that Harry would have just been an ordinary wizard > boy, good at quidditch like Charlie Weasley but no match for > Voldemort, if it hadn't been for LV transferring some of his > powers to him. I don't think he could have saved himself, at the > age of fifteen months, from the spell that killed both his > parents. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Whizbang here: Poor Harry would have loved being an ordinary wizard boy. I think Dumbledore would have wished it for him, as well. But there is nothing ordinary about Harry. According to Dumbledore, the powers transfered by Voldemort are what have given Harry the "power, and a future" to escape the DL four times. None of the transfered powers will vanquish the DL. Even Dumbledore can't do that. This is a power or a quantity of power somehow exclusive to Harry. He was born with it. .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Carol wrote: > I realize that this explanation doesn't in itself support the charm > theory; I'm only explaining here why I no longer think that the > power to deflect the AK was in baby Harry to begin with. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Whizbang here: There seems to be far more in canon to support the AK failing to kill Harry, marking him with a lightning bolt scar, transfering Voldemort's powers and then rebounding to tear Voldemort painfully from his body, leaving him less than the meanest ghost. Of course, the house was also destroyed. And ten years later, Aunt Petunia wouldn't leave Harry home alone because she was afraid she would come home and find the house leveled. Harry protests that he won't blow up the house, but she is unimpressed. (Just what does she know?) How was the house in Godric's Hollow destroyed? I think Harry attacked Voldemort at the same time that the AK was cast and either Harry's alone, or the combination of spells brought the house down as well as all else that occured. "Either must die at the hand of the other." But when they attacked each other simultaneously in the graveyard, they both survived. Has that happened before? Whizbang From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 12:15:54 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:15:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: >(we've had a werewolf; we don't need a vampire "K" Really? Then let's get rid of Fleur, Hagrid, Harry, Maxime, etc. They are all half-bloods. For that reason how about getting rid of the centaurs and the merpeople and the trolls and the goblins and...the whole book. ;-) Seriously, isn't this story being told using creatures? It's not a story using only pureblood wizards. I wonder if Snape had been introduced in book one as a half-vampire if we would complain about a werewolf being introduced later in the series. "K" From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 29 12:29:23 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:29:23 -0000 Subject: Peeves; was:Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89888 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" > wrote: AmanitaMuscaria: > > There's no reference of him in the brief glimpses we've had of Tom's > > schooldays and Dippett's headmastership, so presumably his residency > > is fairly recent (in wizarding terms). > > I don't know why he's there, but I reckon he's got to be important. Geoff: I'm not sure you can base anything too profound on that. Harry's movements within the "diary" school were fairly limited. It was evening and Dumbledore suggested to Tom that he should be off to bed so obviously the other pupils were already in bed, so there wouldn't be manu folk around for Peeves to pester ao maybe he was present but somewhere else in the buildings. I'm keeping an open mind on this one. From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 05:21:45 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:21:45 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89889 Corinth: Big snip> > So overall, I disagree that Arthur needed any family history (either > good or bad) to reach the position he has. It fits perfectly with his > own abilities and opinions. > My point was not that Mr. Weasley needed a family history to get into his position. I agree that he had traveled as far along the line as he could in his field. I simply find it interesting that the Weasleys seem to have a history of some sort which causes others to condescend to them. My point in bringing up his job is that he is evidently worthy of the position of head of department, but not a department that represents any real importance in the eyes of the Ministry. I do not believe that Mr. Weasley necessarily chose Misuse of Muggle Artifacts as his career path, IMO it is possible he got PUT there for some reason having to do with a family history we do not know. Hence, he is paying, literally and figuratively, for someone else's sins. Sue, who loves football and collecting seedpods but chose neither as a career path ;). From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 05:38:38 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:38:38 -0000 Subject: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89890 >Carol wrote: Snip Lupin says, "I'll take that back, shall I?" and tucks the map into his > pocket. When has it been in his possession since the time Filch > confiscated it twenty or so years before? It was in the twins' > possession, then Harry's, and now Snape has confiscated it. He doesn't > trust Lupin, yet he lets him take it without question or objection. > Does he suspect, or even know, that Lupin is one of the makers? Why, > when he sees the nicknames of the four makers (all of whom insult him) > does he immediately call for Lupin? Does he know those four nicknames > from the past? snip I have always assumed (dangerous I know) that Snape did indeed know the nicknames of the Marauders. It also occured to me that perhaps Snape believed that Lupin had actually given Harry the map or that he had inherited it from his father. I don't think Snape would have allowed him to take it if he did not think it belonged to Lupin. It has always been my belief that Snape didn't say anything to Harry about the makers because he had promised DD he would keep his mouth shut about Lupin and Black, especially around Harry. If he had told Harry that Lupin was one of the makers, Harry might have asked questions Snape and Lupin were not supposed to answer. In OotP, Snapes Worst Memory, the marauders repeated refer to each other by thier nicknames. I can only find one example when Snape would definately have heard "Bad luck, Prongs" said Wirius briskly, turning back to Snape (pg 647 US ed.) IMO if they so easily used the nicknames in that scene, they would have used them easily everywhere; class, hallway etc. I'm sure this has been discussed adnausium but how did Harry get the map back after book 4? I also think the map might be quite useful in a way that has yet to be disclosed. Sue From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 04:49:37 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:49:37 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89891 nkafkafi wrote: > Hitomi, Carol and Pippin had somewhat similar responses, so I'm > combining posts. But first, maybe I should make my main points > clearer: > > 1. Main characters in books are not killed just like that. They are > killed only for a good reason. Hitomi now: Hi again! Gomen ne Neri, I don't want this to sound overly argumentative, because I don't mean it that way, but just to squash a stereotype, I've read quite a few books that had main characters die for no seemingly good reason. Much to my chagrin. Not to say Rowling is that kind of author, but until Books 6 and 7 are out, another main character's death is still a possibility, neh? > 2. JKR killed Cedric and Sirius so the reader would feel that no > character, not even Harry, is safe, and she apparently achieved this > goal. > 3. In a sample of several fantasy/children books with BIG wars in > them, the average number of *main* characters Killed In Action is > around 1 (one). > 4. Based on the above, a reasonable prediction is that we are going > to see many *secondary* characters killed in books 6 and 7, but no > main character killed (or one at the most). Hitomi now: And I totally agree with you on all these points, though I consider DD, Harry, and the Weasleys to be main characters, and I honestly expect at least one of them to die. (I feel as though we're talking about Book 5 again, you know, before it was out, and we were all speculating who was going to die ;) ) > Carol wrote: > JKR has said straight out that there will be more deaths and that > some of them will be "favorite characters." > > Neri answers: > Was the "favorite characters" part of the death warning that turned > out to be Sirius? I believe that this announcement was well > calculated to make the most out of Sirius' death, so while reading > OotP for the first time, the reader will feel that any character is > in imminent danger. This ploy, like many of JKR's devious ploys, was > a major success, as evident by the number and variety of death > predictions in HPGU. So I don't see any reason to kill more main > characters and I would not be surprised if, by the end of the series, > Sirius is the most "favorite character" killed. Hitomi now: I personally believe that the air of apprehension once surrounding Book 5 will only increase as we hear more on Books 6 and 7. I agree that I don't think Rowling will kill a major character without reason, but will probably see a few more go. I loved Sirius as a character, but if DD or Harry dies, I will be far more upset than I was over Book 5. I'm not entirely sure how much of this speculation is just me expecting the worse, so that I can be pleased if it doesn't happen, or if I actually believe Rowling would kill off such loved characters. She constantly alludes in interviews how Harry might not live, and sometimes I think she's joking, but then others I think she might just be laying the idea out there, so it doesn't come as so much shock. I guess my point is this: if Rowling does kill of such characters, she'll give a reason, I don't think we need to worry about that, Neri. DD's death could be a mentor-passing-on kind of thing for Harry, leaving him on his own. Harry's death could be an ultimate sacrifice. These are just made-up, non- sensical theories at the moment, but good examples of what I'm trying to convey nonetheless. > Carol: > In any case, as someone else has said, the war is about to begin, and > war means deaths--fortunately not on the scale of LOTR, much less real > wars like WWI or II, but deaths, nevertheless. And they won't all be > bad guys or minor characters. > > And Hitomi: > She continually compares LV to Hitler in interviews, and everyone > knows how many people died needlessly in that war. All I'm saying is > that it would be entirely unrealistic if she didn't kill off more > characters > > And Pippin: > Because it's been prophesied that Voldemort will rise again, "greater > and more terrible than ever he was," (PoA ch 16). What was so > terrible about Voldemort was that the people who tried to stop him > died "horribly" and "no one ever lived once he decided ter kill 'em." > (PS/SS ch 4.) JKR has to maintain our sense that the characters' > lives are in jeopardy and that Voldemort is a serious threat. > Consider that if Sirius hadn't died, the DE's attack on the DoM would > have been sheer buffoonery. > > Neri answers: > Yes, in order to maintain realism, many people should die. But I > still don't see any special reason why any of them should be one of > the *main* characters. Just to illustrate the point, suppose Kingsley > and Diggle would have died in the DoM instead of Sirius. I don't > think the DE's attack would have looked like a sheer buffoonery in > such a case. Hitomi now: Again, I see and agree with your point. Neither do I think Rowling will kill a main character just to make the books seem realistic; not when she could easily kill off secondary characters, such as Cedric, make the same kind of impact, and not completely devastate the reader. The plot wouldn't move nearly as effectively without some of the essential characters, anyhow. She doesn't HAVE to kill a major character to maintain realism, but if we're talking reality, how real would it be for Harry, LV's main target, to not lose someone else close to him? Not very. LV could easily use someone Harry's loves as bait; and we know Harry'd take it. He wouldn't sacrifice a stranger over his own life or beliefs, much less one he cares for deeply. Harry, if he is *the One* as we are told, and as I believe (I feel so Matrix-y), will have to embrace his destiny of pretty much saving the world, and he might have to lose someone else to LV for such an epiphany to occur. Because Sirius's death (at the end of Book 5) left him depressed, resentful, and slightly bitter. All very normal, human responses, but I suspect Harry will be very depressed in the next book, just as he was very angry in the last. And then, perhaps, he will accept his fate, or will pass on in Book 7. A rather cliche idea, I know, but again, it conveys what I'm trying to say. We don't know what's coming; JKR has left things very open- ended. So, I'm not saying anything definite, not when she could still kill the character the entire series is named after. But I do think she'd give us a reason if she killed a major character, just maybe not the reason we would want. And THAT is very realistic. > Hitomi: > what with over half the Order having been murdered last time > > Neri: > Well, maybe Harry will be the one who made the difference this time > around. But I won't be surprised if several *secondary* characters > from the Order will die. Hitomi now: He made the difference last time, neh :-)? And I think we all expect at least some of the secondary characters to die. That's kind of a given. It is a war after all. > Hitomi: > Sirius's death was tragic, sudden, almost unreal and unmoving in its > suddeness, not to mention inexplicaple. It was realistic, because > that's how a lot of deaths are, especially during war There > doesn't have to be a reason why she should kill anymore major > characters. Because when someone dies, we never understand the > reasons anyway. > > Neri: > This is fiction, not realty. In fiction (or at least in *good* > fiction) things don't happen without reason, most certainly not > something important such as the death of a main character. If JKR > wanted to kill Sirius in order to convey the arbitrariness of death > in real life, then this was the reason for Sirius' death, and it was > a good reason. But together with Cedric's death (which was similarly > sudden) I think the readers got that point, so there is no need to > kill more *main* characters for this. Hitomi now: Not for this, no, but maybe for another plot element. And this is me arguing mostly a person philosophy, but isn't fiction supposed to be a person's view of reality? And that, in retrospect, makes it truer than any nonfiction out there. Fiction is someone else's view of life, of the universe; as lone as it is *their* reality, then it works. Everyone has their own idea of what reality actually is; a conglomerate of your experiences, up-bringing, personality traits, beliefs. Which is what makes characters like Umbridge and LV so sinisterly scary, not to mention evil. Was what made Hitler so evil; MLK such a hero; Napolean such an intimidating force. Major figures in history and in fiction skewed reality into what they wanted it to be - most of the time hopelessly wrong, but sometimes so beautifully right, that it opened up once-impossible possiblities. A book should be an extension of that; I don't see any point in trying to shelter children from it. And considering JKR never wrote with any specific target audience in mind (said so in another interview - I've read way too many ;) ), she's not trying to protect anybody, she's just writing her own version of reality. And reality does include death; it's the inescapable phenomenon. Besides, JKR keeps saying there are things worse than death, it's one of her most reiterated points in Book 5, even though we're not entirely sure what she is referring to (though we can make very good estimates). Perhaps, like Tolkien, death will be more a passing on - "the-next- great-adventure." LV is the one pining after immortality. I expect Rowling to express death realistically in her writing, I wouldn't like her novels nearly as much if she didn't. But, according to her, there are worse things (which I'm sure we all agree with), so I doubt the subject of death will be the worse to come in the next two books. > I think the HP series is quite dark already. Harry's parents were > murdered when he was a baby, he had to recall this murder again > several times, and now he had lost Sirius too. The ancient House of > Black is no more. Neville parents were tortured to insanity. The > whole WW, in fact, still carries deep scars from the first war, and > now lives in fear from the second round. This series doesn't require > more deaths of loved characters. Hitomi now: Again, not trying to be needlessly argumentative Neri, but who says? The readers. We don't know where JKR is going with this, it's her plot. So maybe another death is most necessary. We don't know. I sincerely hope not, but I'm not going to throw away the possiblity, if you know what I mean. And the war could make the next two books a whole lot darker; JKR said it was going to get dark, and Book 2 wasn't exactly sunshine and daisies. I guess I'm just letting myself expect the worse, as well as hope for the best. Makes the whole aura permeating the Harry Potter series more exciting, at any rate. > Pippin: > Lupin's little speech in OOP ch 9 about how Molly shouldn't worry > because "it isn't like last time" when the Order was being picked off > one by one gives me the heeby-jeebies. Two of the Order, Podmore and > Sirius, have been picked off already and the war hasn't even gotten > under way. > > And Hitomi: > DD or one of the Weasleys dying wouldn't surprise me in the least; > and I expect some of the lesser-known Order members to die. Harry > dying wouldn't surprise me. > > Neri: > I rest my case. JKR is nothing if not unpredictable :-) Hitomi now: Exactly my point as well. I completely agree :P > Neri: > IIRC, in Ender's game none of the *main* characters died. The "Dark > Materials" trilogy (I also hated the ending!) was indeed > exceptionally dark. I seem to recall it actually had 2 main > characters KIA. I did not read the Sally Lockhart series and > Madeleine L'Engle's (and now they are spoiled for me, the proper > punishment for my sins, I guess :-) Hitomi now: I'm so sorry! Gomen nasai! But I didn't spoil L-Engle's works, at least, not really. "A Wrinkle in Time" is really good, just to give a small recommendation. I guess, because I haven't read any of these books since adolescence, I kind of take it for granted that others have read them (most of my friends have). And LOTR is usually a shoe-in. Anyway, I am sorry, and wasn't the ending to Amber Spyglass just awful? ::bleh:: Gotta love angst >_< About Card's works: Human, Quim, and Ender himself die in later books, too, though, and I know some others characters do as well, they just weren't quite as major. And we know Bean is going to die, what with the genetic modification, and Alvin, too, in the Maker series, because of what Peggy sees in their future. Just some more examples; I do love discussing books :-). > Carol: > BTW, Tolkien considered having Pippin die "doing something brave" and > changed his mind, instead having him "grow" both literally and > figuratively. I think that will happen to the characters in the HP > series as well, especially Harry, Ron, and Neville. I agree with you > that none of them needs to die, though they will certainly make > sacrifices. > > Neri: > Thanks for this interesting information about Pippin. I didn't know > about it but it fits my thoughts exactly. Killing a good character is > the easy way out. It is much more challengeable and rewarding to let > him/her grow. I agree on this as well, but I trust JKR. And if she kills another major character, she'll give us a reason, or at least a semblance of understanding. She's never left us hanging in disappointment before - more like excitement for the next installment. She definitely knows what she's doing. ~ Hitomi, who thanks Neri for this thread, because it brought up subjects I otherwise wouldn't dwell on; and who also still holds on to the hope that no more main characters will die, either P.S. for those who care: I'll respond to my old threads from a couple of days ago. I didn't forget, just been busy :) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Jan 29 12:47:00 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:47:00 -0000 Subject: Possession Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89892 Right, since my post 89817 has been greeted with blank indifference (or at least that part of it which was meant to be the main theme), it's time to repeat the dose and see if it engages a poster or two. It's mostly in the form of questions that I don't have firm answers to, but the suppositions that can be drawn from possible answers to the questions intrigue me. You can make your own mind up about what you think. Possession. The mental(?) control of another being. Very different from the ability to read minds. In canon it seems that only Voldy can do this - why? What is it about Voldy that gives him the power to possess? Numerous small animals, Nagini, Quirrell, Ginny, sort of with Harry, he seems to be able to do it at will, with no need for wand or spells. Is it a power that Tom developed on his own or is it a power from elsewhere that also possessed Tom (maybe when he first entered the Chamber) and is it this possession that turned him into Voldy? If you're an heir, there is something to be handed down to you isn't there? If it is a power or entity separate in origin from Tom does Tom still exist as a personality in some form inside the Voldy!Monster? Is this why DD keeps appealing to Tom; is he trying to break the hold of whatever has taken him over? This is the way I'm tending to lean. Although Tom wandered the world for a number of years before making his bid for power, there is no evidence of anything out there that could change a spiteful and resentful adolescent into the Voldy!Monster. But the Chamber of Secrets is a special place, designed and built by a powerful and decidedly nasty piece of work - Salazar Slytherin. The title itself implies that there are, or were, multiple secrets. What were (are) they? Was there something in there that was waiting for the right personality to enter that would allow it to take form again? Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock!Horror! Kneasy From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 14:50:44 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:50:44 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Possession. The mental(?) control of another being. Very different > from the ability to read minds. > In canon it seems that only Voldy can do this - why? "K" I probably shouldn't even be answering this as I don't have time to go into great detail, but Voldy isn't the only one who has the ability to control others. This is something that Harry can also do, IMO. > Kneasy > Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock!Horror! "K" No. I don't think so. BBC Newsround/Fall 2000 Interview with J.K. Rowling, Transcript Voldemort's a half-blood too JKR: Like Hitler! See! I think it's the case that the biggest bully takes their own defects and they put them on someone else, and they try to destroy them. And that's what he Voldemort does. That was very conscious - I wanted to create a villain where you could understand the workings of his mind, not just have a 2-D baddie, dressed up in black, and I wanted to explore that and see where that came from. Harry in Book Four is starting to come to terms with what makes a person turn that way. Because they took wrong choices and he Voldemort took wrong choices from an early age.~~ "K" From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 29 15:07:00 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:07:00 -0000 Subject: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89895 Carol wrote: > Snip << Lupin says, "I'll take that back, shall I?" and tucks the map into his pocket. When has it been in his possession since the time Filch confiscated it twenty or so years before? It was in the twins' possession, then Harry's, and now Snape has confiscated it. He doesn't trust Lupin, yet he lets him take it without question or objection. Does he suspect, or even know, that Lupin is one of the makers? Why, when he sees the nicknames of the four makers (all of whom insult him) does he immediately call for Lupin? Does he know those four nicknames from the past? snip>> Sue replied: << I have always assumed (dangerous I know) that Snape did indeed know the nicknames of the Marauders. It also occured to me that perhaps Snape believed that Lupin had actually given Harry the map or that he had inherited it from his father. I don't think Snape would have allowed him to take it if he did not think it belonged to Lupin. It has always been my belief that Snape didn't say anything to Harry about the makers because he had promised DD he would keep his mouth shut about Lupin and Black, especially around Harry. If he had told Harry that Lupin was one of the makers, Harry might have asked questions Snape and Lupin were not supposed to answer. In OotP, Snapes Worst Memory, the marauders repeated refer to each other by thier nicknames. I can only find one example when Snape would definately have heard "Bad luck, Prongs" said Wirius briskly, turning back to Snape (pg 647 US ed.) IMO if they so easily used the nicknames in that scene, they would have used them easily everywhere; class, hallway etc. (snip)>> Sigune reflects: There is one thing that troubles me, though. Isn't the scene in "Snape's Worst memory" supposed to take place during James Potter's fifth year at Hogwarts? Now, the nicknames derive from the boys' Animagus forms, don't they? And they only figured out how to transfigure themselves into animals after their /sixth/ year, because in their sixth year Sirius played his prank on Snape and that means Remus still had to go to the Shrieking Shack at that time. In PoA he explains that this wasn't necessary anymore as soon as his friends became Animagi, as they were able to control him in animal form. So: there is no problem with 'Moony', because Lupin was a werewolf ever since he entered Howarts; but how can we explain the use of 'Prongs', 'Padfoot' and 'Wormtail' if the stag, the dog and the rat forms are yet to be assumed? Or am I getting it all wrong? (That is also a possibility of course :) ). Yours severely, Sigune - who still wants to know why they called Snape 'Snivellus' as he doesn't seem the crybaby type. From rtb333 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 13:57:07 2004 From: rtb333 at yahoo.com (rtb333) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:57:07 -0000 Subject: Ghosts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89896 What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep wondering why are they there. Rob From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 29 15:43:27 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:43:27 -0000 Subject: The Animagi was Re: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > Sigune reflects: > There is one thing that troubles me, though. Isn't the scene > in "Snape's Worst memory" supposed to take place during >James Potter's fifth year at Hogwarts? Yes. They're just taking their OWLs. Sigune: >>Now, the nicknames derive from the boys' Animagus forms, don't they? And they only figured out how to transfigure themselves into animals after their /sixth/ year, because in their sixth year Sirius played his prank on Snape and that means Remus still had to go to the Shrieking Shack at that time. In PoA he explains that this wasn't necessary anymore as soon as his friends became Animagi, as they were able to control him in animal form.<< Um, no. The Prank was probably in their sixth year, but the Animagi outings began in the fifth, as Remus says in PoA, "Finally, in our fifth year, they managed it." Remus was still being taken to the Shack to transform and had to stay there until his friends arrived to release him. Each month his friends helped him escape and kept him from attacking humans. James tells Peter in the Penseive that "You run around with a werewolf once a month." So we know the outings had already begun. Sigune: > who still wants to know why they called Snape 'Snivellus' as he > doesn't seem the crybaby type. Not now. But a "small dark-haired boy cried in a corner" in Snape's memories. Pippin From free_lunch_club at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 15:47:02 2004 From: free_lunch_club at hotmail.com (thetruthisoutthere_13) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:47:02 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy wrote: > This is the way I'm tending to lean. Although Tom wandered the > world for a number of years before making his bid for power, there > is no evidence of anything out there that could change a spiteful > and resentful adolescent into the Voldy!Monster. >From me: The one flaw I see in your argument is that Tom Riddle took the time to create his diary while still at Hogwarts and presumably before he first entered the chamber of secrets. Plus he was already calling himself "Lord Voldemort" amongst his friends at school. Creating the diary to preserve his sixteen year old self shows quite a bit of foresight, actually, that shows more foresight from Voldemort than we saw in OotP. I guess the next proof you need for your theory is 1) whether Tom started calling himself Voldemort before or after he entered the chamber, and 2) if he created the diary before or after entering the chamber. -kg From liz at studylink.com Thu Jan 29 15:00:18 2004 From: liz at studylink.com (liz) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:00:18 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89899 on 29/1/04 4:07 pm, severelysigune at severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Sigune reflects: > There is one thing that troubles me, though. Isn't the scene > in "Snape's Worst memory" supposed to take place during James > Potter's fifth year at Hogwarts? Now, the nicknames derive from the > boys' Animagus forms, don't they? And they only figured out how to > transfigure themselves into animals after their /sixth/ year, because > in their sixth year Sirius played his prank on Snape and that means > Remus still had to go to the Shrieking Shack at that time. In PoA he > explains that this wasn't necessary anymore as soon as his friends > became Animagi, as they were able to control him in animal form. > > So: there is no problem with 'Moony', because Lupin was a werewolf > ever since he entered Howarts; but how can we explain the use > of 'Prongs', 'Padfoot' and 'Wormtail' if the stag, the dog and the > rat forms are yet to be assumed? > > Or am I getting it all wrong? (That is also a possibility of > course :) ). Liz here: By the time the pensieve scene takes place they are already able to transform. When Peter says he couldn't remember all the signs of a werewolf James says "How thick are you Wormtail? You run around with a werewolf once a month!", and later Sirius wishes it was full moon, obviously so he can have some fun as a dog. Also in POA Lupin says that they discovered he was werewolf in second year and set out to learn the animagus spell, which took three years. So I think it's fairly clear that they managed it in their fifth year. As to why they were not already with Lupin on the night of the prank there are several possibilities for that. A logical one is timing. In winter in the UK the sun goes down as early as 4pm. The moon would come up soon after. It seems logical that the others would probably not go to join Lupin until after lessons and dinner ended when they would not be noticed. So Snape could have gone down before they did etc etc. I can think of many other possibilities but they are mere speculation, so I will not bore you with them. Liz From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 16:06:28 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:06:28 -0000 Subject: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: <4017EB10.1010301@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89900 DIGGER WROTE: > There is more to his [Snape's] mystery and past. As a major > character we should be rewarded with more of his back story in > books 6 and 7. I personally vote for his being given DADA at the > start of book seven. But I'm drifting from the point...... > SIRIUSLY SNAPEY SUSAN NOW: I think most of us are planning on major revelations about Snape in books 6 & 7; without them, we'll likely feel severely cheated! Okay, it's Digger's "drift from the point" which actually has me intrigued, so I'm heading off with it.... I'd really like to ask people to weigh in on something. Maybe I'm having my impressions tainted by those damn movies or by fanfic, but I think Snape ADORES potions. He's a potions *master*, not just the Hogwarts potions teacher; he speaks of few students appreciating the "exact art and subtle science that is potion-making" [ahhh, a lovely, thought-provoking phrase, is it not?]. Snape may be/have been fascinated by the Dark Arts, but I think he is perfect as potions master. So, here are my questions for the group: Do you believe Snape would be HAPPIEST teaching DADA or Potions? To which is he most SUITED, in your view? Siriusly Snapey Susan From gartzen at e-mail.dk Thu Jan 29 15:51:53 2004 From: gartzen at e-mail.dk (gartzen88) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:51:53 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89901 Rob wrote: > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep > wondering why are they there. In PoA they help searching the castle for Black... Maybe they help in tight situations or give advice. They could be some kind of "pets", and make Hogwarts a more cosy place ;) - GartZen From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 16:44:11 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:44:11 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Is it a power that Tom developed on his own or is it a power from > elsewhere that also possessed Tom (maybe when he first entered the > Chamber) and is it this possession that turned him into Voldy? > If you're an heir, there is something to be handed down to you > isn't there? > > If it is a power or entity separate in origin from Tom does Tom still > exist as a personality in some form inside the Voldy!Monster? > Is this why DD keeps appealing to Tom; is he trying to break the > hold of whatever has taken him over? > > Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock! Horror! > > Kneasy Julie: I certainly have held that theory myself. That is part of the reason for my posts on Grindelwald and Tom Riddle. DD defeated Grindelwald at the time Tom was at Hogwarts. A former post (I can't find it at present...no time) suggested that the "evil" is something much greater than Voldemort. It is the same evil that possessed Grindelwald and possibly the same that possessed ole Sal. Remember when Flitwick (in the movie MM) talked about the founders? SS got along with them at first then dissented. I think having an evil presence that can possess others (SS, Grindelwald, Tom) makes this a far more complex and dimensional character development than "Tom = Bad Guy and Harry = Good Guy." Given this hypothesis, I think of several questions stemming from it: 1) Does this "evil" possess only one person at a time? 2) What common characteristics do SS, Grindelwald, and TR have that would make them a target? 3) Would this not open up the possibility of redemption? Given that JKR is big on choice, coupled with the prophecy not stating clearly that either would HAVE to DIE, this IMO stands as a plausible possibility. 4) Does Harry have the same characteristics as the others, thus making him susceptible to the temption that this "evil presence" has? If so, and he defeats LV, would this not make him face the ultimate choice...follow the same path as SS, G, and TR or finally CHOOSE good, thus possibly banishing this presence forever? Wouldn't that be an interesting conclusion to the Septology? Julie From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 16:47:10 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:47:10 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gartzen88" wrote: > Rob wrote: > > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep > > wondering why are they there. > > > In PoA they help searching the castle for Black... Maybe they > help in tight situations or give advice. They could be some kind > of "pets", and make Hogwarts a more cosy place ;) > > - GartZen I think the Bloody Baron would take offense to being referred to as a "pet." I think the ghosts play and will play a larger role in the septology and that their presence does have meaning. Could they be part of what is protecting Hogwarts? Julie From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 16:50:35 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:50:35 -0000 Subject: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > DIGGER WROTE: > > There is more to his [Snape's] mystery and past. As a major > > character we should be rewarded with more of his back story in > > books 6 and 7. I personally vote for his being given DADA at the > > start of book seven. But I'm drifting from the point...... > > > > SIRIUSLY SNAPEY SUSAN NOW: > I think most of us are planning on major revelations about Snape in > books 6 & 7; without them, we'll likely feel severely cheated! Okay, > it's Digger's "drift from the point" which actually has me intrigued, > so I'm heading off with it.... > > I'd really like to ask people to weigh in on something. Maybe I'm > having my impressions tainted by those damn movies or by fanfic, but > I think Snape ADORES potions. He's a potions *master*, not just the > Hogwarts potions teacher; he speaks of few students appreciating > the "exact art and subtle science that is potion-making" [ahhh, a > lovely, thought-provoking phrase, is it not?]. Snape may be/have > been fascinated by the Dark Arts, but I think he is perfect as > potions master. > > So, here are my questions for the group: Do you believe Snape would > be HAPPIEST teaching DADA or Potions? To which is he most SUITED, in > your view? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Do we have more canon evidence, other than Percy's comment or comments from other students that it is the Dark Arts that Snape fancies? I can't recall any, but it has been a while since I have read them. If no other evidence exists, my vote is that Snape does prefer potions and that the students speculate about the DA because of his appearance and the fact that he once was a DE. Julie From catherinemck at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 17:02:41 2004 From: catherinemck at hotmail.com (catherinemckiernan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:02:41 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" > wrote: > > > > Berit replies: > > > > Well, Voldemort practically says Crouch Jr's name without actually > > saying it: > > Quote: "He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through > > his efforts that our young friend arrived tonight." > > > > I don't think there can be much doubt that "the faithful servant" is > > none other than Crouch Jr. He was the one that made sure Harry's name > > was put into the Goblet of Fire, he made sure Harry made it to the > > end of the Triwizard Tournament, he was the one who turned the Cup > > into a portkey... Carol responded: > The question now is, do the Death Eaters know what happened to the > "faithful servant"? Do they even know who he was? (We do, and there's > no ambiguity in LV's words for us, but do they? Does even LV know what > happened to him?) Unless Snape, in his role as double agent, told > Lucius Malfoy, I don't see how they *could* know. But one thing's > certain. The "faithful servant" did not return. > > Thoughts, anybody? The following is predicated on Crouch being the faithful servant... Is the Dark Mark a two-way connection? I think probably not, else there would be no point in Karkaroff fleeing, and no possibility of interesting conspiracy if LV knew where all the DEs were (also Hermione's coins, based on the same charm, are changeable only by her, not teh holders). That said, the mark might indicate if the bearer died, not that that is any help here as Crouch is alive. Voldemort can only know what if a)Snape told him, b)he read it in Harry's mind - unlikely - c)someone else told him. That could either be another double-agent in the Order, assuming Dumbledore told them what happened, or Fudge who was actually there. I can easily see Fudge telling Malfof "can you imagine, Dumbledore actually expected me to beleive this shaggy-dog story about the return of You-Know-Who! The man's going mad!" And Malfoy dutifully reports to the Dark Lord, earning a few brownie points and possessing a useful bit of information. Catherine McK "We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" Four conspirators plot in the firelight. One brother urges caution, the other pursuit, and a boy is mad for his reward. Read 'The Faithful' at http://www.thedarkarts.org/authors/nineveh/F.html From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 17:27:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:27:33 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Possession. The mental(?) control of another being. Very different > from the ability to read minds. > In canon it seems that only Voldy can do this - why? > What is it about Voldy that gives him the power to possess? > Numerous small animals, Nagini, Quirrell, Ginny, sort of with Harry, > he seems to be able to do it at will, with no need for wand or > spells. > Is it a power that Tom developed on his own or is it a power from > elsewhere that also possessed Tom (maybe when he first entered the > Chamber) and is it this possession that turned him into Voldy? > If you're an heir, there is something to be handed down to you > isn't there? > > If it is a power or entity separate in origin from Tom does Tom > still exist as a personality in some form inside the Voldy!Monster? > Is this why DD keeps appealing to Tom; is he trying to break the > hold of whatever has taken him over? > > But the Chamber of Secrets is a special place, designed and built > by a powerful and decidedly nasty piece of work - Salazar Slytherin. > The title itself implies that there are, or were, multiple secrets. > What were (are) they? Was there something in there that was waiting > for the right personality to enter that would allow it to take form > again? > > Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock!Horror! > > Kneasy K. then responded: No. I don't think so. BBC Newsround/Fall 2000 Interview with J.K. Rowling, Transcript Voldemort's a half-blood too JKR: Like Hitler! See! I think it's the case that the biggest bully takes their own defects and they put them on someone else, and they try to destroy them. And that's what he Voldemort does. That was very conscious - I wanted to create a villain where you could understand the workings of his mind, not just have a 2-D baddie, dressed up in black, and I wanted to explore that and see where that came from. Harry in Book Four is starting to come to terms with what makes a person turn that way. Because they took wrong choices and he Voldemort took wrong choices from an early age.~~ Now Siriusly Snapey Susan: I think as long as one is willing to postulate that Tom was already making BAD CHOICES and went seeking "The Darkness", it could still be *possible* that JKR's response in this interview still fits.... Or it could be that K's right and that Tom is not an [almost] innocent victim. Even if it's not that Voldy is Possessed!Tom [or Voldy!Monster], I think Kneasy still asks some fascinating questions: 1) Why IS it called the Chamber of Secret*S*? What other secrets are/were contained there? 2) What happened to Tom when he entered it? What did he learn & see? What DID he inherit as Heir of Slytherin, if anything? 3) What IS it about Voldy which allows him to apparently so easily possess others? Is this some gift or talent he's always displayed? Or did something happen to him which allowed him to begin to use others this way? What THIS what he somehow inherited?? 4) What is the reason for DD's continually calling him "Tom"? It *could* be merely a defiant refusal to grant him "Lord" status and to put him in his place as a former student. But could it be something different, as Kneasy's suggested--a calling out to the Tom who might still be "in there" or "out there" somewhere? Remembering JKR's infamous "I almost revealed it all in Chamber of Secrets" comment [paraphrased], I think these ideas are worth further contemplation. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Thu Jan 29 18:10:00 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:10:00 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89907 > Kneasy wrote: > > This is the way I'm tending to lean. Although Tom wandered the > > world for a number of years before making his bid for power, there > > is no evidence of anything out there that could change a spiteful > > and resentful adolescent into the Voldy!Monster. No book here at work, but Diary!Tom does say that "Voldemort is my past, present and future." There is something to this statement. The reference to the past, I believe goes well beyond Tommy Riddle's adolescence and early childhood. I also think you might be trying to look for *what happened* in his past that could have made Tom into Volde, but, really, I think a better question may be what was he lacking--what did he not have and how far was he driven to seek this lacking sense of self and purpose. I think growing up without a link to his past, his parents and a sense of who he is in the world place, makes a much bigger impact when all these factors are absent, not just dysfunctional, but absent completely. ----- >Kneasy also wrote: >But the Chamber of Secrets is a special place, designed and built >by a powerful and decidedly nasty piece of work - Salazar Slytherin. >The title itself implies that there are, or were, multiple secrets. >What were (are) they? Was there something in there that was waiting >for the right personality to enter that would allow it to take form >again? >Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock!Horror! And I think when Tom (my past is just a) Riddle came upon his ancestry being linked to Sal, well, his starving thirst of self identity found this wealth of history and purpose as an outlet for all his talent and ambition. Yes, I think it's very possible he embodies the spirit (in some form) of someone he's necromanced or somehow sould his soul to. Biggest clue to this? The red eyes--those are just not natural. They just screem 'demonic possession!' to me. Was Tommy an innocent victim? No way. We all have good and evil within us, and we've heard it before--our choices make us who we are. He may have been vulnerable due to his circumstances, hungry for acceptance and purpose, and just striving for success and respect but ultimately, he was the one who made the choices to accept the path he's travelled. I'll concede the "choices" may be more or less difficult for some, but that's life. Just my thoughts... Arya From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Thu Jan 29 18:24:51 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:24:51 -0000 Subject: Old Possession Thread In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89908 Kneasy wrote: Why was Tom so interested in the CoS? For the same reason that the students in Harry's year are absolutely fascinated by the thought of it. A legend come to life! Wow! Tell us more! Where is it? Note that the legend states that the Chamber can only be opened by the Heir. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy - if you can get in, you must by definition be the Heir. There is the possibility that opening the Chamber turns you into the Heir, that whoever gets there first is transformed into Salazar's avatar. A trap for the unwary or the unsuspecting and ambitious. I suspect that Tom Riddle took on the Lord Voldemort identity as the result of entering the CoS, that what was in the Chamber changed him into what he became. It is, after all, called the Chamber of Secrets - plural. All we have seen so far is a single secret monster. What else is or was there? In which case, we have to ask ourselves are Tom's actions of his own volition or is he suffering from some sort of possession?, not theirs. <> ----------------- This makes me think of the voice in Harry's head that makes him feel he "knew" the name TM Riddle at some point. NBo quoteing, but I think he said, "...like a friend he'd [Harry] had had when he was little. But he'd never had friends...Dudley..blah blah..." Perhaps, if whatever makes Tom the Dark Lord and the Heir was something linked to a spell of his ancestors (Sal himself perhaps) that passed along knowledge, power, skills, etc by his blood then we can guess where Tom just hears voices in his head or "knows" things without learning them. Also, if we hold that the curse that failed on Harry also transfered some powers to him, then perhaps Harry has a bit of this knowledge and power. Not just parseltongue is evidenced by this, but perhaps also the fact that very some very odd anc chilling reason, Harry felt a vague recognition at "TM Riddle". It also reminds me in a way of Dumbleodre in OotP and the whole green smooke snakes that are, "in essence, divided". There's more to all this, I'm sure, but I haven't the time to sit down properly and work it all out. Later-- Arya From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 17:44:08 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:44:08 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89909 Big Snip....Kneasy wrote:> > But the Chamber of Secrets is a special place, designed and > built by a powerful and decidedly nasty piece of work - Salazar > Slytherin. The title itself implies that there are, or were, > multiple secrets. What were (are) they? Was there something in > there that was waiting for the right personality to enter that > would allow it to take form again? > > Could it be that Tom is an (almost) innocent victim? Shock!Horror! I like the idea of there being more than one secret in the chamber. I have always felt that it will be used again in the future of the series, especially since there are only 2 people who can open it (at least as far as we know). I can't see V as an innocent victim though. To me, it seems like the kind of an ending where everything winds up full of rainbows and beautiful: "After Harry returned from his time travel where he freed Tom from his demons, he ran into the embrace of his mother, father and Godfather and discovered that everyone who had been hurt was well and the benevolant Tom M. Riddle was the current Minister of Magic." I just don't see it that way. I have always thought that Dumbledore's refering to Voldemort as Tom was condescending. In other words, "You are nothing more than an out of line school boy to me you little creep." Sue, Who love happy endings but would find a victimized Riddle annoying. From stanleys at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 29 18:29:45 2004 From: stanleys at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:29:45 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89910 Julie wrote: Snip > A former post (I can't find it at present...no time) > suggested that the "evil" is something much greater > than Voldemort. It is the same evil that possessed > Grindelwald and possibly the same that possessed ole > Sal. Remember when Flitwick (in the movie MM) talked > about the founders? SS got along with them at first > then dissented. I think having an evil presence that > can possess others (SS, Grindelwald, Tom) makes this > a far more complex and dimensional character development > than "Tom = Bad Guy and Harry = Good Guy." > > much more snipping (I am trying to behave) Sue here: >From my perspective, having an evil force that possesses people and moves through time makes the characters far less complex. How easy, how simple. No one ever has to be accountable for their actions, they were posssessed. I see complexity of character as being born from gut wrenching decisions, the ones that no one wants to make. For instance, the decision Harry made in the shrieking shack when he saved Wormtail's life. The decision Harry makes at the end of every book to put himself back in the care of the Dursleys and follow the rules. Etc. Tom Riddle was faced with many similar decisions and his choices were profoundly different. He decided (IMO) to enter the chamber and release the monster, he decided to kill his father and grandparents, etc. I believe the quote from JKR in a previous post (can't locate it right now) stating that Voldemort was an example of wrong choices which he began making at an early age is really important. I see Harry and Tom as being basically identical (there are many references to this in canon) and that as they grow up they make markedly different choices and hence become markedly different people. In the end, I believe, we will see two complete people. Tom Riddle, a guy who made poor choices and wound up with no choice but to live with the consequences, even if there may be times he would rather not. Harry who will also have to live with the consequences of his choices, good and bad. I don't see either character as so simple (Tom=bad, Harry=good). I do know that in the RW there are really bad people who NEVER feel accountable for their actions (ie. the serial killer who murders countless victims and then blames his mother and alchohol etc). Some people are just bad, I don't see that as making them less complex. Ramble, Ramble....Sue From belijako at online.no Thu Jan 29 19:39:12 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:39:12 -0000 Subject: Snivellus Was:The Animagi was Re: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89911 Sigune wrote: who still wants to know why they called Snape 'Snivellus' as he doesn't seem the crybaby type. Pippin wrote: Not now. But a "small dark-haired boy cried in a corner" in Snape's memories. Berit replies: True. Snape doesn't come across as the type who'd grovel and cry when taunted by his enemies, as the pensieve scene shows: He fights with every means he has, not a teardrop in sight, just swearing... But Pippin's got a point. I think the marauder gang might have accidentally come across an eleven-year old Snape crying behing the greenhouses or something like that. And after that the name "Snivellus" stuck. A cruel thing to label him Snivellus after an incident like that, but we know that wouldn't stop James and Sirius... Why would a young Snape hide away to cry? Well, if my theory in another thread holds water, his father is abusive and no-good; and his mother is a long-term resident at St. Mungo's disguised as a hairy, barking dog... That'd make any boy cry... Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 19:48:58 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:48:58 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > Carol: > > I remember Uncle Vernon mumbling something that sounds to Harry like > > "mimble wimble," but I just checked and it's not in "The Keeper of > > the Keys" chapter of SS/PS. > > Geoff: > > It is. > > "But Hagrid simply waved his hand and said, 'About our world, I mean. Your world. My world. Yer parents' world.' > > 'What world?' > > Hagrid looked as if he was about to explode. 'DURSLEY', he boomed. > > Uncle Vernon, who had gone very pale, whispered something that > sounded like 'Mimblewimble'." > > (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.41 UK edition) bboy_mn: First, I question any real connection between Mimbulus Mimbletonia and 'mimblewimble'. All JKR is trying to do, is describe an indecipherable mumbled vocal untterance. Converting assorted non-verbal vocalizations to text is not an easy task. It's very difficult to write them in a way that is as comprehendable to the read as it is to the writer. "ARGH!" is a utterance that is typically used by authors as a general purpose exclaimation, usually reflecting shock or fear, and while common in written word, I have never in my life heard anyone actually exclaim 'argh!'. Other examples- "Oh!" - dawning of comprehension, or sometimes, fright. "...oouuu!..." - feeling dull pain or discomfort, occassionally, a groan "...uuooo!..." - A groan "...oowww!...' - Feeling sharp pain or discomfort So, in my opinon, 'mimblewimble' is just a soft muttered indecipherable vocalization. Just a thought. bboy_mn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 19:53:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:53:56 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > Carol: > > I remember Uncle Vernon mumbling something that sounds to Harry like > > "mimble wimble," but I just checked and it's not in "The Keeper of > the > > Keys" chapter of SS/PS. > > Geoff: > > It is. > > "But Hagrid simply waved his hand and said, 'About our world, I mean. > your world. My world. Yer parents' world.' > 'What world?' > HAgrid looked as if he was about to explode. > 'DURSLEY', he boomed. > Uncle Vernon, who had gone very pale, whispered something that > sounded like 'Mimblewimble'." > > (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.41 UK edition) Oops. You're right. That's p.50 of SS Am. ed. But as I said, it's not Uncle Vernon muttering a "spell" to prevent Hagrid from trying to turn Dudley into a pig (which happens nine pages later in my edition). It's merely a reaction to Hagrid bellowing "DURSLEY!" and "mimblewimble" is Harry's interpretation of Uncle Vernon's words, not necessarily what Uncle Vernon actually said. So the rest of my little argument, such as it is, still applies. Carol From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 20:01:34 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:01:34 -0000 Subject: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > DIGGER WROTE: > > > There is more to his [Snape's] mystery and past. As a major > > > character we should be rewarded with more of his back story in > > > books 6 and 7. I personally vote for his being given DADA at the > > > start of book seven. But I'm drifting from the point...... > > > > > > > SIRIUSLY SNAPEY SUSAN NOW: > > > > > > I'd really like to ask people to weigh in on something. ... > > I think Snape ADORES potions. He's a potions *master*, not just > > the Hogwarts potions teacher; ... Snape may be/have been > > fascinated by the Dark Arts, but I think he is perfect as > > potions master. > > > > So, here are my questions for the group: Do you believe Snape > > would be HAPPIEST teaching DADA or Potions? To which is he most > > SUITED, in your view? > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Julie: > > Do we have more canon evidence, other than Percy's comment or > comments from other students that it is the Dark Arts that Snape > fancies? ...edited.. > > Julie bboy_mn: When Umbridge inspects Snape's class, she comments that Snape has applied for the DADA job everytime it has been vacant (paraphrased). That certainly indicated that Snape has some interest in the job. I feel confident that he is indeed interested in the job, but I don't think we have enough real information to concluded that he is obssessed with getting it. It's possible he just thinks it might be nice to work in a room and have an office that have windows in them, so he doesn't have to spend all his time in the dark dreary dungeons. Constantly working in the dark dungeons would be enough to give anyone a bad disposition. Just a thought. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 20:13:20 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:13:20 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gartzen88" wrote: > Rob wrote: > > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep > > wondering why are they there. > > > In PoA they help searching the castle for Black... Maybe they > help in tight situations or give advice. They could be some kind > of "pets", and make Hogwarts a more cosy place ;) > > - GartZen bboy_mn: No doubt ghost can come in handy at times. They can take risks that living people can't, and I keep expecting them to be used as spys in the war against Voldemort. Ghost could easily lurk around inside the walls of Voldemort's headquarters and over hear things. Although, that hinges on someone finding out where the headquarters is located. Overal though, I think Dumbledore keep the ghosts around to keep things interesting. How many kids, even wizard kids, can say they are on friendly speaking terms with 20 ghosts. As far as Peeves, Peeves really makes life at the castle interesting. I can't imagine there being a kid who ever went to Hogwarts who doesn't sit around quaffing a few ales, swapping Peeves stories with his friends, and laughing hysterically at everyone's Peeves based misadventures. Also, I think Dumbledore feels there are life lessons to be learned for the ghosts and Peeves. The ghost have many centuries of 'life' experience and insight that they can pass along to any student interested enough to ask. And I think the same goes for Peeves, Fred and George seem to have come to a deeper understanding and insight into Peeves. Maybe that's simply because they took the time to get to know him. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 20:09:52 2004 From: bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com (bluejay_2112) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:09:52 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89916 I found a fascinating link about Harry Potter and the Scapegoat Archetype: http://www.mythandculture.com/cultural/harrypotter.html It talkes about other famous "scapegoats", including Jesus. A fascinating look at being "outside the camp", wounds, etc.! Has anyone thought about the other Archetypes withink Harry Potter? Harry obviosly has Orphan Child, much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and other fairy tales. I think that's one of the reason the whole Harry Potter series is so appealing to so many age groups: J.K. has a good grasp on universal archetypal themes. Thoughts? Janet http://NewAge.BellaOnline.com From bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 20:04:09 2004 From: bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com (bluejay_2112) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:04:09 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89917 Rob wrote: > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So I keep > wondering why are they there. Perhaps they are simply a type of "mascot". In Rowling's magical world, this makes sense to me! :o) Janet http://NewAge.BellaOnline.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 20:25:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:25:11 -0000 Subject: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" > wrote: > I think it possible that McGonagall was married to > > Voldemort, and furthermore, that she still is. > > > > Picture it... Riddle reveals his evil overlord plans to his new > > bride, a young and innocent McGonagall. She is horrified, tells > him > > to "get out!" she goes back to her maiden name and tries > to > > forget him. She pours herself into her teaching. > > > > When Voldy does surface again, she is terrified to reveal > her connection to him. > > > > This also explains why so few people know who Voldemort once was. > > Dumbledore figured it out, and he is protecting Minerva by keeping > > silent, and keeping her at Hogwarts. So... whadd'ya think? > > > > --Erin > > > I think it's the most wonderful, and original, speculation I have > read in absolutely ages, Erin. Thanks for giving me a good reason to > delurk. > > Minerva's exceptional talent is well documented I could easily > imagine her having been quite the prestigious trophy girl for Tom in > his younger years. > Love it very much. Good sleuthing Erin. > > Grinning > Valky By the time Tom Riddle was old enough to marry (17 or 18 at the earliest), he had already murdered four people and left a diary that would enable his successor at Hogwarts to carry on "Salazar Slytherin's noble work." There is no evidence that he was interested in girls (or women). Minerva McGonagall, as far as we can determine from information JKR has provided on their respective ages, would have entered Hogwarts in September 1931 and left it in June 1938; she did not return as a teacher until 1956. Tom Riddle entered the school in September 1938, three months after McGonagall left it, murdered Myrtle in 1943 and his father and grandparents in the summer of 1944, and left Hogwarts in 1945. He did not reappear until the 1970s, when he began gathering supporters, few of whom connected Lord Voldemort with Tom Riddle, model Head Boy at Hogwarts. There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship with McGonagall. In fact, JKR seems to have arranged the time frame so that McGonagall would have no contact with Tom Riddle either as a fellow student or a teacher. (She would, however, have taught many of the Death Eaters, including Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Black Lestrange.) See the Timelines at the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000 Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 29 20:36:53 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:36:53 -0000 Subject: Giving the map to Lupin (Was: Lupin's vampire essay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > With regard to the vampire essay, koinoinia quotes: > > 'Well!' said Lupin, clapping his hands together and looking around > > cheerfully. 'That seems to clear that up!' Severus, I'll take this > > back, shall I?' He folded the map and tucked it inside his > > robes. "Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire > > essay. Excuse us, Severus.' > > PoA/Ch 14/pg 213/UK > > > 4/pg 77/US > > Carol responds: > I've had my say on why I don't think the vampire essay (though it was assigned) has anything to do with Snape (we've had a werewolf; wedon't need a vampire), but there's something else intriguing about that quote. > > Lupin says, "I'll take that back, shall I?" and tucks the map into his pocket. When has it been in his possession since the time Filch confiscated it twenty or so years before? It was in the twins' > possession, then Harry's, and now Snape has confiscated it. He doesn't trust Lupin, yet he lets him take it without question or objection.< Snape hasn't got much choice. He called Lupin in to look at the parchment, ostensibly because Lupin is the Dark Arts expert, so he can't very well refuse Lupin the chance to examine it. Besides, I think Snape had found out what he most wanted to know. I think Snape is enough of a legilimens to know when Harry is lying, though he doesn't always know *why*. Harry's bewilderment at the "directly from the manufacturers" question and his direct "no" when asked if he knew any of the men was enough to convince Snape that, however Harry got the parchment, it wasn't from Moony or Padfoot. As for whether we "need" a vampire, if abilities and circumstances are all that matter, we don't need a vampire, and we certainly don't need all those Weasleys. If choices matter, then we need to be shown that people with similar abilities and circumstances can choose different paths. Pippin From lovefromhermione at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:03:55 2004 From: lovefromhermione at yahoo.com (JuHu) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ghosts Message-ID: <20040129210355.62503.qmail@web40206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89920 The ghosts already serve a purpose- that of a mentor or counselor to the students. NHN has been that for Harry several times: pointing him where to go when he and Ron were first years, rescuing him from Filch's office, and expounding the history of the Sorting Hat's songs. Harry goes to Nick to ask about Sirius, and seems disappointed that Nick can't help him this time. While each house has a head, they are extremely busy and can't serve in much of an advising capacity. But each house's ghost has limitless time and also a *lot* of experience. JuHu, who wonders what relationship the Slytherins have with the Bloody-Baron __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:03:51 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:03:51 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "suehpfan" wrote: > Julie wrote: > Snip > > A former post (I can't find it at present...no time) > > suggested that the "evil" is something much greater > > than Voldemort. It is the same evil that possessed > > Grindelwald and possibly the same that possessed ole > > Sal. Remember when Flitwick (in the movie MM) talked > > about the founders? SS got along with them at first > > then dissented. I think having an evil presence that > > can possess others (SS, Grindelwald, Tom) makes this > > a far more complex and dimensional character development > > than "Tom = Bad Guy and Harry = Good Guy." > > > > much more snipping (I am trying to behave) > > Sue here: > From my perspective, having an evil force that possesses people and > moves through time makes the characters far less complex. How easy, > how simple. No one ever has to be accountable for their actions, > they were posssessed. I see complexity of character as being born > from gut wrenching decisions, the ones that no one wants to make. For > instance, the decision Harry made in the shrieking shack when he > saved Wormtail's life. The decision Harry makes at the end of every > book to put himself back in the care of the Dursleys and follow the > rules. Etc. > > Tom Riddle was faced with many similar decisions and his choices were > profoundly different. He decided (IMO) to enter the chamber and > release the monster, he decided to kill his father and grandparents, > etc. I believe the quote from JKR in a previous post (can't locate > it right now) stating that Voldemort was an example of wrong choices > which he began making at an early age is really important. I see > Harry and Tom as being basically identical (there are many references > to this in canon) and that as they grow up they make markedly > different choices and hence become markedly different people. > > In the end, I believe, we will see two complete people. Tom Riddle, a > guy who made poor choices and wound up with no choice but to live > with the consequences, even if there may be times he would rather > not. Harry who will also have to live with the consequences of his > choices, good and bad. > > I don't see either character as so simple (Tom=bad, Harry=good). I > do know that in the RW there are really bad people who NEVER feel > accountable for their actions (ie. the serial killer who murders > countless victims and then blames his mother and alchohol etc). Some > people are just bad, I don't see that as making them less complex. > > Ramble, Ramble....Sue Sorry for the misconception. I never meant that they would be "absolved" because they were possessed. Nor that they could cop out saying, "The Devil made me do it!" I also did not mean that the "possession" was not by choice. I used the word "possessed" because that was the original post. What I am talking about is empowered. They were presented with a choice (much like LOTR ring) and chose to be empowered by whatever this "power source" was. Just as LOTR (Smeagoll/Gollum specifically), the choice was always before them. Choice is the major theme for the septology. I just think that the choice TR made was made by possibly two others before him, and most likely will be a choice Harry is faced with at the end. Julie From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:06:59 2004 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (drjuliehoward) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:06:59 -0000 Subject: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89922 > > bboy_mn: > > When Umbridge inspects Snape's class, she comments that Snape has > applied for the DADA job everytime it has been vacant (paraphrased). > That certainly indicated that Snape has some interest in the job. > > I feel confident that he is indeed interested in the job, but I don't > think we have enough real information to concluded that he is > obssessed with getting it. It's possible he just thinks it might be > nice to work in a room and have an office that have windows in them, > so he doesn't have to spend all his time in the dark dreary dungeons. > Constantly working in the dark dungeons would be enough to give anyone > a bad disposition. > > Just a thought. > > bboy_mn Unless, as some speculate, Snape is a (dare I say the word?) V- word. Julie (humorously, hoping to not stir up the whole Snape is/is not a vampire thread again!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:08:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:08:51 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89923 - > Carol wrote: > > > I originally thought as you do that the power was in Harry himself, > > but JKR kept presenting new evidence that contradicted that > > theory--first the Parseltongue that Harry acquired from LV when > > some of LV's powers were passed to him, > > Whizbang here: I must be missing something. How does Harry's being > a parselmouth or any skill aquired when Voldemort marked him an > equal, suggest that Lily did a protective charm? The prophesy > states that the one had the power as he approached, not that he > aquired it later or as the result of someone else's action. The > power to vanquish the DL is in Harry. It always has been. > > Whizbang I wasn't talking about the charm here. I was talking about the progressive revelations regarding the scar that convinced me that Harry's survival had nothing to do with powers within himself. Those powers were acquired from the AK (but the fact that the curse rebounded could relate to the charm). Let me state again that we first learn that Harry alone survived the curse. Then we learn that he acquired powers from Voldemort. Then we learn that his survival had something to do with his mother's love and/or her sacrifice ("old magic," Voldemort calls it). JKR is not telling us everything at once. She's adding layer by layer of new information. I think we can discard any thought that an inborn power within Harry enabled him as a baby of fifteen months to throw off a curse that had killed every other wizard it was used on. Also, where does the prophecy state that "the one had the power when he approached"? If you mean "the one who would destroy Voldemort already had that power when Voldemort marked him as his equal," I think you're mistaken. It would help if you'd quote the specific phrase you're referring to, but please remember that prophecies are by nature ambiguous and this one is no exception, so we probably won't agree on the interpretation in any case. Whizbang: >Somehow, the fact that Lily's wand was good for charms and the identification of the rune represented in the scar seem very thin canon to base this on. Knowing what we do about Harry, and > Dumbledore's statement that he put the protective charm on Harry > seem to contradict it. Carol: Again, I think you're confusing two different charms, the one that Mandy and I think Lily may have used to protect Harry from the AK and the one we all know Dumbledore used to provide him protection while he stayed with the Dursleys. I know it's confusing, but the known existence of one charm doesn't preclude the possible existence of the other. And Lily's skill with charms as revealed by her wand *is* an important hint that we shouldn't ignore. It hints at what's to come just as James's wand hinted at his skill as an animagus. The rune also will prove important. I'm only stating a possible connection, not a proven fact--putting two and two together like Snape, if you like. I may be right or I may be wrong, but at least it seems like an intriguing possibility. Surely you can at least concede that the hints are there, whatever they may mean. > Carol wrote: > > > Also, you might consider that we don't know what powers Harry had > > as a baby before LV "marked" him. > ****************************************** > > Whizbang here: > > Harry had the power to vanquish the dark lord as he approached, > before he was born. The prophesy should be taken into consideration > in this theory. Carol: Forgive me, but you're taking your own theory for granted here. We *don't* know that Harry "had the power to vanquish the Dark Lord as he approached." I think you're confusing what happened at Godric's Hollow with what the Prophecy (ambiguously) states will happen in the final confrontation. I'm not ignoiring the Prophecy, but clearly we're interpreting it differently. > Whizbang here: > According to Dumbledore, the powers transfered by Voldemort are what > have given Harry the "power, and a future" to escape the DL four > times. None of the transfered powers will vanquish the DL. Even > Dumbledore can't do that. This is a power or a quantity of power > somehow exclusive to Harry. He was born with it. Carol: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here. In any case, a power within Harry that will ultimately enable him to defeat LV is not necessarily a power he was born with. And again, his ability to defeat LV in the future is not the same as his "ability" to survive the AK in the first place. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that his survival was the result of anything the infant Harry said, did, or willed. His survival is the result of something his mother did--her love, her self-sacrifice, or a charm she put on him to protect him--we don't know yet. And the powers he acquired from Voldemort may well rebound on Voldemort just as the AK did. We don't know that, either. You seem to be certain of your view, but it is really only an interpretation just as mine is. We are looking at the same passages and interpreting them differently. We are both presenting theories. There are no absolutes here, and evidence is only evidence, not proof. > Carol wrote: > > > I realize that this explanation doesn't in itself support the charm > > theory; I'm only explaining here why I no longer think that the > > power to deflect the AK was in baby Harry to begin with. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Whizbang here: > > There seems to be far more in canon to support the AK failing to > kill Harry, marking him with a lightning bolt scar, transfering > Voldemort's powers and then rebounding to tear Voldemort painfully > from his body, leaving him less than the meanest ghost. CaroL: We both agree on this point. Where we disagree is that you think the power to deflect the AK was within Harry himself, something he was born with, whereas I think he was protected by Lily, at the very least by her love and self-sacrifice, but possibly by a protective charm as well (which is where the other evidence--her wand and the Eihwaz rune, comes in). Whizbang: Of course, > the house was also destroyed. And ten years later, Aunt Petunia > wouldn't leave Harry home alone because she was afraid she would > come home and find the house leveled. Harry protests that he won't > blow up the house, but she is unimpressed. (Just what does she know?) > > How was the house in Godric's Hollow destroyed? I think Harry > attacked Voldemort at the same time that the AK was cast and either > Harry's alone, or the combination of spells brought the house down > as well as all else that occured. "Either must die at the hand of > the other." But when they attacked each other simultaneously in the > graveyard, they both survived. Has that happened before? Carol: A fifteen-month-old baby who couldn't even talk yet beyond "Mama" and "bye bye" picked up a wand and cast a spell? I have no idea why the house was destroyed, but I'm willing to bet fifty galleons in leprechaun gold that it wasn't that. Again, you seem to be confusing the Prophecy, which concerns the ultimate defeat of Voldemort by the one he marked as his equal with the events at Godric's Hollow. Carol, who would really appreciate support from the L.O.O.N.s on this thread From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:22:50 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:22:50 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89924 > Hitomi wrote: > Again, not trying to be needlessly argumentative Neri, but who > says? The readers. We don't know where JKR is going with this, > it's her plot. So maybe another death is most necessary. We don't > know. I sincerely hope not, but I'm not going to throw away the > possiblity, if you know what I mean. And the war could make the > next two books a whole lot darker; JKR said it was going to get > dark, and Book 2 wasn't exactly sunshine and daisies. I guess I'm > just letting myself expect the worse, as well as hope for the best. > Makes the whole aura permeating the Harry Potter series more > exciting, at any rate. Neri now: Hitomi, I'm with you in almost everything. Sorry if I came across argumentative (which was only because I *am* argumentative :-). It goes without saying that all this was only my personal opinion and my personal prediction, which are no better than that of any other reader. Of course JKR will do whatever she wants with her characters. She is not in any way committed to my opinion or to the results of my (not very sound) statistical analysis of other writers' work. But the point of the statistics was that, indeed, good writers usually (not always) don't like killing their main characters, even at times of war, and I don't think JKR is exceptional in this. Well, I admit that JKR is very good at creating a large number of different major characters, all very interesting and likable (even those who are not so nice...) so maybe she considers them more expendable, relative to writers that are not so prolific. But I doubt it. Does a mother of seven love each of them less than a mother of two? What I'm trying to say is, with JKR's talent for hints, red herrings and sarcastic humor, it is very easy for all of us to come up with posts like "yesterday in the middle of the night I woke up with a very bad feeling about Ron and the axe man". You know, those Trelawney-like posts. OK, Prof. Trelawney *was* right twice in her career, but this doesn't make her more tactful, and we all know what is JKR's opinion about her. It would be admittedly more difficult, but I think also more productive, to explain how and why it will be right (in the context of the plot, theme and other characters' development) for Ron to die. Neri ---------------------------------------- "A good character is hard to find" ---------------------------------------- From frost_indri at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:39:14 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:39:14 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89925 Janet: > I think that's one of the reason the whole Harry Potter series is so > appealing to so many age groups: J.K. has a good grasp on universal > archetypal themes. > > Thoughts? Frost: Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the archetypes. Yes, a lot of the characters have similarities, but they often break free of them. If she stuck through with archetypes (which is a dumbing and destroying plague upon fantasy writing) we wouldn't be here arguing about who (or what) Snape is, or whether or not Harry will be good or evil, or live or die or be destroyed. We wouldn't be so suspicious of Dumbledore, we would know that Ron was always by Harry's side. I think that the archetypes pervade our society. When we see a hero, we expect the good buddy that will stick through thick and thin. We expect there to be a mentor, we expect a nemesis. I think JKR has all of those in the books, but then she takes it and makes it her own. Snape fits no archetype that I can think of, and I think he is a extremely post-modern character. Harry is not, as Dr. Zipes puts it, the perfect male role-model. His boy-scout days are over, as we can see with his unreasoning and selfish hate of Snape at the end of OoP. He thinks that he'll never forgive Snape. What does he have to forgive Snape for? Snape responded to Harry's plea the only way he could, considering how dangerous his Order work is. (not that we really know WHAT it is, just that it's required of him to hide his membership, and what side he is on.) It was because of Snape's actions that Harry and the DA members were rescued from certain defeat. (In essence, he called in the Calvary). And now Dr. Zipes' "perfect" Harry hates him, because he needs someone to pin Sirius's death on, and he can't accept that something's don't have blame, or that sometimes everyone is at fault. Archetypes aren't people. Archetypes are symbols. Harry is not a symbol. This isn't a morality play. This isn't an allegory. There is no Red Crosse Knight who comes charging in on his white horse to face the dragon Temptation. If ever there were archetypes in the story, the characters wore the robes awkwardly, with the sleeves slipping off the shoulders, and their respective shields dragging on the ground. By now I think they have rather lost them. In summery of my statement: Yes, there is a loose framework of archetypes, but what is there is a mere ghost of those archetypes: insubstantial not effecting the "real" world. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 29 22:22:10 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:22:10 -0000 Subject: Possession/Quirrell's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89926 I have to admit that I didn't take message 89817 in fully when I first read it; it was late at night. However, following Kneasy's exhortations to read it again, I did. I found the Tom/Voldemort link intriguing. Partly because, while I was perambulating around the glorious scenery of Exmoor with my dogs this afternoon, my mind suddenly latched on to a scenario which I thought lent parallels to this. Back about 1953, the BBC transmitted the granddaddy of television sci- fi serials, one which became a benchmark for other programmes of the same genre ? "the Quatermass Experiment" by Nigel Kneale. It may look fuzzy with rather stilted dialogue and bad props by today's standards but, at the time, it had the UK sitting on the edge of its chair each week. The story is of a rocket launched with three scientists on board which loses contact for a couple of days with Earth and then returns where it appears that there is only one person on board. However, as the story progresses, it becomes obvious that this person has the amalgamated personalities of all three scientists and also has an alien intelligence which is gradually dominating the others. The being begins to pose a threat to the future of life as we know it (Jim?) and finally (in the TV series, not the film), the head of the research group which sent the rocket up confronts the entity and appeals to the remnants of human conscience within it and, in so doing, brings about its destruction. This immediately linked with Kneasy's suggestion that perhaps Dumbledore was trying to reach a remnant of Tom's personality by using his name and is trying to "induce a form of schizophrenia" between the two personalities and so possibly cause self-destruction. This is a fascinating theory; I haven't worked out yet whether I would subscribe to it but it is worthy of some discussion. **** Changing tack slightly on the subject of possession, I think it has been raised in the past that there seem to be at least two levels of possession. Quiirrell is possessed by Voldemort but retains his own thoughts and self-awareness. But then "'I didn't want anyone to talk to me,' said Harry, who was feeling more and more nettled. `Well, that was a bit stupid of you,' said Ginny angrily, `seeing as you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know-Who and I can tell you how it feels.' Harry remained quite still as the impact of these words hit him. Then he wheeled round. `I forgot', he said. `Lucky you,' said Ginny coolly. `I'm sorry,' Harry said and he meant it. `So so, do you think I'm being possessed then?' `Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?' Ginny asked. `Are there big blank periods when you don't know what you've been up to?' Harry racked his brains. `No,' he said. 'Then You-Know-Who hasn't ever possessed you,' said Ginny simply. `When he did it to me, I couldn't remember what I'd been doing for hours at a time. I'd find myself somewhere and not know how I got there.' (OOTP "Christmas on the Closed Ward" pp.441-42 UK edition) In your theory, I wonder which category a Voldemort possession of Tom Riddle would fit? **** Finally, changing tack yet again and returning to the question of Quirrell's death and your comments on manslaughter. If the same criteria apply in the Wizarding World, I'm sure I could see prosecutors having fun trying to prove that Harry injured Quirrell to the extent that Voldemort left his body and in so doing brought about his death. I stick with my theory that Voldemort was not forced to leave Quirrell but chose to, probably knowing the outcomes for Quirrell, but realising that he was no longer a suitable "vessel" because his possession of Q's body had been revealed and he needed to find new quarters. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 29 22:29:32 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:29:32 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Oops. You're right. That's p.50 of SS Am. ed. But as I said, it's not > Uncle Vernon muttering a "spell" to prevent Hagrid from trying to turn > Dudley into a pig (which happens nine pages later in my edition). It's > merely a reaction to Hagrid bellowing "DURSLEY!" and "mimblewimble" is > Harry's interpretation of Uncle Vernon's words, not necessarily what > Uncle Vernon actually said. So the rest of my little argument, such as > it is, still applies. Geoff; I wasn't disagreeing with your thesis. I was merely finding the quote which you had missed. Digging around in canon to find a section can be very tiring on the eyes sometimes... From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 21:51:58 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:51:58 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89928 Hey Carol and Whizbang! I'm just going to add my tiny two pence to this argument, and say that while I agree that both your points are more than valid, though Whizbang, I too agree with Carol that we sometimes like to take our own theories for granted, I still don't particulary think Lily placed a charm on Harry, though she could have. If she did, I'm prone to think it was a combination of that, the prophecy, and the old magic (a.k.a. love) that DD speaks of (that LV underestimates, because he despises it, and also because he doesn't understand love) that saved Harry that night. The prophecy, in my opinion, would only work for whichever boy LV chose (hence the phrase "the one"). He chose Harry. So when he attacked that night, whatever universal clauses or magic are at work concerning this prophecy, worked to have the Curse back-fired, and thus, Harry marked as LV's equal. I don't believe Harry might have necessarily had the power to begin with, we don't know, though it's possible. But I do believe he has it now, because LV fulfilled that element of the prophecy. And in fulfilling it, Harry is now somehow his equal, and THAT more than likely saved him that night (at least that's my half-formed theory). ~ Hitomi, who hopes Carol isn't angry, because she likes a lot of her posts, though she is more inclined to see Whizbang's point :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 22:54:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:54:39 -0000 Subject: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89929 > SIRIUSLY SNAPEY SUSAN NOW: > I'd really like to ask people to weigh in on something. Maybe I'm > having my impressions tainted by those damn movies or by fanfic, but > I think Snape ADORES potions. He's a potions *master*, not just the > Hogwarts potions teacher; he speaks of few students appreciating > the "exact art and subtle science that is potion-making" [ahhh, a > lovely, thought-provoking phrase, is it not?]. Snape may be/have > been fascinated by the Dark Arts, but I think he is perfect as > potions master. > > So, here are my questions for the group: Do you believe Snape would > be HAPPIEST teaching DADA or Potions? To which is he most SUITED, in > your view? Carol: Interesting question! There's no question that he's a real expert in potion-making--not just in being one of the few wizards in the UK (or is it the WW?) who can make the wolfbane potion, but in evidently memorizing the ingredients of hundreds of potions in their exact order and proportions. And, as you say, he speaks of potion making in glowingly poetic terms in the first book, as I don't think even a man with his flair for the dramatic would do if he didn't mean every word. And he loves logic (the riddle in CoS, "putting two and two together as only Snape could" in GoF), so why not love "the exact art and subtle science that is potion making"? (In the RW, he'd be a poet/chemist, not as incompatible a combination as it may seem.) He also seems to disparage charms and other spells in that same speech: "There will be no silly wand waving in this class." Wands, of course, are crucial to DADA, whether it's defending yourself from a boggart or deflecting an unfriendly spell. The speech makes it sound as if these skills (of which his first years know little or nothing) are unimportant. Yet we know that Snape is a skilled "wand waver." He can do anything from cleaning up a spill to writing his notes on the board with a flick of his wand, not to mention the countercurse against Quirrell, "Expelliarmus" (and vanishing Draco's serpent) in the Duelling Club scene with Lockhart, and the Legilmency spell in the occlumency lessons. In other words, the poetic tribute to Potions rings true (to me), but the disparagement of wand waving doesn't. And both occlumency, at which he is "superb" (Lupin's word), and duelling, about which he clearly knows a lot more than the little bit Lockhart credits him with, are crucial to DADA. And consider the passion he poured into the DADA O.W.L. exam, with his long, detailed responses in minuscule writing to squeeze it all onto the parchment. I would be very surprised if he didn't receive the highest possible score. (If he stayed in school long enough to take his N.E.W.T.s, and I'm assuming that he did since he became a professor and not merely an instructor like Hagrid or Madam Hooch, he probably excelled in both Potions and DADA on them as well.) So he seems to be an expert in both fields and passionate about them both. And then there's his apparent interest in the Dark Arts themselves: his ability to do a huge number of hexes at age eleven and being "up to his eyes in the Dark Arts" throughout his Hogwarts career, according to Sirius (who may or may not be confusing Dark Arts and Defense Against Dark Arts--maybe you can't have one without the other, just as Snape must know not only the potions but their antidotes, which he conveniently keeps tucked under his robes as he teaches his classes). The only way I can answer your question, SSS, is to say that choosing one over the other is like asking an excellent musician to choose between teaching voice or violin. Potions are tied to the Dark Arts just as curses are, and antidotes are tied to DADA just as countercurses are. Would Snape enjoy teaching defensive spells and countercurses? I think he would. Would he enjoy teaching the younger students about hinkypunks or grindylows? Probably not. Would he, if allowed, enjoy Imperioing, Crucioing and AK-ing spiders? I don't want to know. So, based on all of this, I'm starting to think he's better off where he is. I still want him to prove himself worthy of the DADA position, but having thought about it, I'm not so sure I really want him to teach it. I'd love to see him offered the position and turning it down. I'd also like to see McGonagall (in the Epilogue) as the new Headmistress (DD would have to die; sorry) and Snape as the new Deputy Headmaster, as strict as McGonagall but no longer nasty because VWII is over and Harry and Neville have left the school. Harry would be "Just Harry" and Snape would be "Just Severus." Oh, well. I love (relatively) heppy endings and am tired of having confliicted characters redeem themselves only as they die. (Boromir, anyone?) Let Snape redeem himself and live. Whether he chooses Potions or DADA at that point is up to him. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:12:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:12:54 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drjuliehoward" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gartzen88" > wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > > > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep > > > wondering why are they there. > > > > > > In PoA they help searching the castle for Black... Maybe they > > help in tight situations or give advice. They could be some kind > > of "pets", and make Hogwarts a more cosy place ;) > > > > - GartZen > > I think the Bloody Baron would take offense to being referred to as > a "pet." I think the ghosts play and will play a larger role in the > septology and that their presence does have meaning. Could they be > part of what is protecting Hogwarts? > > Julie Carol: Peeves (admittedly not a real ghost) certainly doesn't make Hogwarts a "cozy" place. Neither does the Bloody Baron. They do provide atmosphere for us as readers and some of them have served as minor plot devices, e.g., Peeves attacking Umbridge, Myrtle helping Harry with the Second Task, and Sir Nick being petrified. (I still wonder if he's a Muggle-born ghost. Anybody?) But I agree with Julie that they'll have a larger role to play in later books. The idea that they're protecting Hogwarts is interesting, though I'm not sure what they could do beyond scaring off Muggles and, in Peeves's case, dropping water balloons on Lucius Malfoy's head. But IIRC, Beauxbatons doesn't have ghosts (it definitely doesn't have a poltergeist), so Julie could be right. And also the ghosts (not including Peeves) show us one possible fate that awaits wizards after death. Any bets that at least one of the main characters who dies in Book 6 or 7 comes back as a ghost? Carol, who just had a terrible thought--twin ghosts with silver hair and silver freckles haunting the corridors of Hogwarts From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:25:27 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:25:27 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89931 > Carol: > > The question now is, do the Death Eaters know what happened to the > > "faithful servant"? Do they even know who he was? (We do, and > there's > > no ambiguity in LV's words for us, but do they? Does even LV know > what > > happened to him?) Unless Snape, in his role as double agent, told > > Lucius Malfoy, I don't see how they *could* know. But one thing's > > certain. The "faithful servant" did not return. > > > > Thoughts, anybody? > Catherine McK" > The following is predicated on Crouch being the faithful servant... > > Is the Dark Mark a two-way connection? I think probably not, else > there would be no point in Karkaroff fleeing, and no possibility of > interesting conspiracy if LV knew where all the DEs were (also > Hermione's coins, based on the same charm, are changeable only by her, > not teh holders). That said, the mark might indicate if the bearer > died, not that that is any help here as Crouch is alive. > > Voldemort can only know what if a)Snape told him, b)he read it in > Harry's mind - unlikely - c)someone else told him. That could either > be another double-agent in the Order, assuming Dumbledore told them > what happened, or Fudge who was actually there. I can easily see Fudge > telling Malfoy "can you imagine, Dumbledore actually expected me to > beleive this shaggy-dog story about the return of You-Know-Who! The > man's going mad!" And Malfoy dutifully reports to the Dark Lord, > earning a few brownie points and possessing a useful bit of > information. > Carol: Your idea that Fudge told Malfoy, who in turn told Voldemort, makes sense to me. And, not that it's directly relevant here, Malfoy would know through Wormtail about Sirius's ability to transform into a dog. At least there's no need (plotwise) for Snape to have revealed either bit of information and no need, really, for another traitor within the Order (other than the treacherous Kreacher, who of course isn't a member of the Order). Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:40:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:40:16 -0000 Subject: Snivellus Was:The Animagi was Re: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Sigune wrote: > who still wants to know why they called Snape 'Snivellus' as he > doesn't seem the crybaby type. > > Pippin wrote: > Not now. But a "small dark-haired boy cried in a corner" in > Snape's memories. > > Berit replies: > > True. Snape doesn't come across as the type who'd grovel and cry when > taunted by his enemies, as the pensieve scene shows: He fights with > every means he has, not a teardrop in sight, just swearing... But > Pippin's got a point. I think the marauder gang might have > accidentally come across an eleven-year old Snape crying behing the > greenhouses or something like that. And after that the > name "Snivellus" stuck. A cruel thing to label him Snivellus after an > incident like that, but we know that wouldn't stop James and Sirius... > > Why would a young Snape hide away to cry? Well, if my theory in > another thread holds water, his father is abusive and no-good; and > his mother is a long-term resident at St. Mungo's disguised as a > hairy, barking dog... That'd make any boy cry... > > Berit > http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html Just to add another "what if" to this thread (and no, I'm not going to quote canon to back up pure speculation), maybe Snape joined the Death Eaters in part to get back at his father, who does appear from out brief glimpse of him to be abusive to Snape's mother and possibly to him. I'm guessing, though, that the small boy cowering in the corner is a lot younger than eleven. I picture him as no more than five. Carol From erinellii at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:47:10 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:47:10 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89933 Carol wrote: See the Timelines at the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000 Minerva McGonagall, as far as we can determine from information JKR has provided on their respective ages, would have entered Hogwarts in September 1931 and left it in June 1938; she did not return as a teacher until 1956. Tom Riddle entered the school in September 1938, three months after McGonagall left it, murdered Myrtle in 1943 and his father and grandparents in the summer of 1944, and left Hogwarts in 1945. He did not reappear until the 1970s, when he began gathering supporters, few of whom connected Lord Voldemort with Tom Riddle, model Head Boy at Hogwarts. There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship with McGonagall. Erin: I think that's a little harsh. This is the interview the Lexicon gives as the source for McGonagall's timeline. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/1000- scholastic-chat.htm and here is the exact quote from that interview: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? A: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This interview takes place in October 2000, after GoF was published. Going by the Lexicon timeline, where GoF ends in June 1995, that would make McGonagall born in 1925, not starting Hogwarts until around 1936. However, the Lexicon seems to have interpreted JKR's words as meaning McGonagall was 70 at the start of Harry's first year. Unless I'm missing an interview, I don't really know why they've decided to do that. The Lexicon even acknowledges the uncertainty of their McGonagall birthdate by putting a little c., standing for circa, or "about" before both the 1920 birthdate and the 1931 entering Hogwarts date. In other words, the Lexicon timeline is not set in stone, and there's no reason that McGonagall couldn't have been as little as two years ahead of Tom Riddle. Maybe liking slightly older girls is one of the "strange likenesses" Tom and Harry have in common. :-) As you pointed out, as yet there's no canon basis for Tom showing an interest in girls at all. Of course, there are quite a lot of facts missing from Tom's background as it stands, so I don't think there's room to rule it out, either. But let's go with it anyway. What says Tom would have to love McGonagall to get involved with her? Maybe he needed something from her and believed that the best way to get it from her was to become romantically involved? Suppose, for instance, McGonagall was a prefect or Head girl, and Tom needed access to a certain part of the castle at certain times of the night, on an ongoing basis. Or maybe he needed some saliva from a virgin's first kiss for one of his Dark Arts experiments. Sure, he could have dumped her afterwards, but maybe at one point he thought she'd make a good cover for his secret experiments, whereas dumping her would have exposed him as a jerk, so he married her for those reasons. Or maybe a Dark Arts spell required something from the spellcaster's wife. Who knows? What we do have as far as canon is concerned is Tom's assertation that he had always been able to charm those he needed. Now maybe I'm just sexist, but I don't often think of guys talkng about "charming" other guys. So when I hear Riddle say that line, it seems to me to refer for the most part to women. Carol wrote: In fact, JKR seems to have arranged the time frame so that > McGonagall would have no contact with Tom Riddle either as a fellow > student or a teacher. Erin: That is a matter of opinion. When I saw the interview, my first thought was that JKR had purposely arranged it so that McGonagall, Hagrid, and Dumbledore all knew Riddle from his school days. And, to quote Betta smaragdina from message 89932: "Well, that would be one scenario for JKR's saying in an interview that she can't talk about which Hogwarts professors had spouses because it becomes important to the plot later." --Erin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:58:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:58:42 -0000 Subject: Similar people, different choice (Was: Giving the map to Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89934 Pippin wrote: > As for whether we "need" a vampire, if abilities and > circumstances are all that matter, we don't need a vampire, and > we certainly don't need all those Weasleys. If choices matter, > then we need to be shown that people with similar abilities and > circumstances can choose different paths. Carol responds: We already plenty of foils (similar circumstances, different choices), most notably Harry and Tom Riddle (see Kneasy's thread on Tom as victim). We even have, to a small degree, Dumbledore and Karkaroff (did anyone notice that Karkaroff has white hair and pale blue eyes?). The pairs of brothers motif may be leading in this same direction, too--Regulus and Sirius, at least. And we can read Sirius and Severus (note the similar names) as contrasting pairs (foils) as well. (I certainly see a lot more similarities between Snape and Sirius, both physically and temperamentally, than between Snape and Lupin.) Can anyone else think of any other characters who seem to be deliberately contrasted, confronted with similar choices but taking different paths? Is Mr. Crouch, Sr., being contrasted with Dumbledore, or, alternatively, with Voldemort? (I don't mean obviously different people like Muggle Petunia and Witch Lily, but similar people whose choices lead them on different paths, like Harry and Tom Riddle.) Carol From frost_indri at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 00:05:12 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:05:12 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89935 > bboy_mn: > > First, I question any real connection between Mimbulus Mimbletonia and'mimblewimble'. > Frost: Good point. After all, it only >sounded< like mimblewimble. However, it does not mean that it would be any less fun if it were Mimblewimble. bboy_mn: > All JKR is trying to do, is describe an indecipherable mumbled vocal > untterance. > > "ARGH!" is a utterance that is typically used by authors as a general > purpose exclaimation, usually reflecting shock or fear, and while > common in written word, I have never in my life heard anyone actually > exclaim 'argh!'. Frost: Maybe I spent too much of my developing time in books, but I've used Argh, Oohh, uuuh, uuo, and lots of "ow" in many different forms. (Ow. OW. OOOOOOWWWW! etc.) Heck, I've even used "Yargh!" "Yarr," and "youch!" Basicly, its trying to spell unarticulated sounds. Often I hear people read "Argh" with a hard "g" sound. It actually has more of a back of the throat almost making a "g" sound, but the gh is one of the best ways I can think of to spell it. I think that "mimblewimble" is too articulated to be included amongst these. I don't knwo what he was trying to say, but if she just wanted him muttering, she could have just said so. I think that it has a possibility of meaning something. I'm just not sure that it does mean anything. We'll find out in the end, but until then, I think it would be very funny if Vernon ended up haveing magical connections. Frost From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Jan 30 00:14:47 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:14:47 -0000 Subject: Do we need any more death cases? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89936 Massive snippage> > > Neri: > > OK, I do seem to remember that JKR said in some interview that > there > > will be many people dying. But I think this was before GoF, wasn't > > it? > > Taryn: > > No, that interview was post-GoF. You can take a look here: > Neri again: > I stand corrected. But if she actually didn't say "many", then Sirius > and a couple of secondary characters will qualify. Hopefully. Marianne chimes in: One other thing to consider, other than JKR's vague mention about upcoming deaths is her quote about needing to be "ruthless" as a writer. (Was this the Katy Couric interview?) When she talked about walking into her kitchen crying because she had just written Sirius' death scene, her husband asked her what was wrong. She told him why she was so upset and he said something like "Well, if it upsets you so much, don't kill him off." Her response was that an author has to be ruthless when writing children's books. I take that to mean that she doesn't believe that children should be talked down to or should have their stories all prettied up with everything coming out okay in the end. And if JKR's world has indeed entered a war, then she had to kill off major characters in order to be true to her ruthlessness. She can't simply bump off nameless people or people who've earned hardly more than a mention in the story. Putting in people like Emmeline Vance merely to turn them into Vmort victims to let us know there's a war going on somewhat cheapens the message, IMO. I don't think she'll kill people off just to yank our emotional chains. At least, I hope not. Nor do I want to see another death written in to let me know that death is sudden and arbitrary. I got that message already. But, I think she fully intends to kill off other major characters and I think she will use the deaths to advance the plot. Just think of all those folks who want to see Snape go out with a blaze of murdered glory, proving once and for all what a noble sort he is. Or think of a character who may be pursuaded to give up some information to the DEs in a futile effort to protect someone they care about, only to see that blow up in their face. And, of course, let's not forget the Hero's Journey bit - Dumbledore will have to die to finally free Harry to face his destiny. I've always figured that one reason there are so many Weasleys is that JKR can bump off a few in the upcoming battles. I see Weasleys with bull's-eyes painted on their backs... Marianne From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 30 00:23:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:23:07 -0000 Subject: Help please, finding this JKR interview!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89937 Okay, now I feel like an idiot. Earlier today I wrote this: Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: Remembering JKR's infamous "I almost revealed it all in Chamber of Secrets" comment [paraphrased], I think these ideas are worth further contemplation.---------- ------------------------- Rightfully, someone wrote to me offlist to ask me where this quote came from...and I set off in search of it. I've spent a couple of hours with no luck. I found this oft-quoted one-- They have such fun with their theories - and it is fun, it is fun. And some of them even get quite close. No-one has ever - I have gone and looked at some of it and no-one's ever... There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything and no-one's quite got there but a couple of people have skirted it. So you know, I would be pretty miffed after 13 or 14 years of writing the books if someone just came along and said I think this will happen in book seven. Because it is too late, I couldn't divert now, everything has been building up to it, and I've laid all my clues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3004456.stm --and this-- Kloves will suggest cutting something from the script and Rowling will throw up a caution flag like, "No, something happens in Book Six that you'll need that to be in (Movie Two)." "I've given Steve more than I've ever told anyone else," confides Rowling, wondering if that disclosure will open his life to fresh kidnapping and extortion threats. As for Kloves, he hasn't been in an odder situation: "I'm writing a story to which I do not know the end!" He pauses, then adds with the hint of a smile, "That sometimes happens in my own work ? but here, I'm writing this over a decade." Kloves and Rowling disclose, with appropriately cryptic flair, that a key scene in "The Chamber of Secrets" foreshadows emotional complications among three characters that will become apparent when the newest book is issued in June. http://twnonline.org/archive_twn/030417/030417_dvd_select.htm --but not the one I THOUGHT I remembered, wherein JKR said that she came close to revealing it all in CoS. So is this a phantom in my imagination? Did I make it up??? Help!! Siriusly Snapey Susan From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 00:25:48 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:25:48 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89938 > > > Rob wrote: > > > > What purpose do ghosts serve at Hogwarts? Each house has > > > > one. Peeves seems to be just a troublemaker. So i keep > > > > wondering why are they there. > > > > > > > > > In PoA they help searching the castle for Black... Maybe they > > > help in tight situations or give advice. They could be some kind > > > of "pets", and make Hogwarts a more cosy place ;) > > > > > > - GartZen > > > > I think the ghosts play and will play a larger role in the > > septology and that their presence does have meaning. Could they be > > part of what is protecting Hogwarts? > > > > Julie > > Carol: > . They do provide > atmosphere for us as readers and some of them have served as minor > plot devices, e.g., Peeves attacking Umbridge, Myrtle helping Harry > with the Second Task, and Sir Nick being petrified. (I still wonder if > he's a Muggle-born ghost. Anybody?) But I agree with Julie that > they'll have a larger role to play in later books. Now Neri : I think that, while JKR doesn't work a lot in the metaphoric level, the ghosts are one of the important metaphors in HP. They are there to remind us that Hogwarts is indeed "haunted" and "full of ghosts". Nothing is just what it seems to be. Everything has a long, often painful history. Things that happened 20 years ago, 50 years ago and even 1000 years ago often have a crucial importance in your life. I believe a main source of the power and attraction of the HP books is that they show us how children are hostages and often victims of events, rules, conventions and traditions that were formed many years before they were born. In the real world we usually fail to notice it, because those conventions and traditions are so ingrained in us that we don't even see them. They are transparent like ghosts. We can't imagine things could be different. But the conventions and traditions of the WW are tantalizingly different-yet-similar to those of our real world, and so we are able to see for the first time how arbitrary they are, and that all children must grow into a world that is severely haunted by the "ghosts of the past". Neri, sincerely apologizing for his sudden philosophical mood From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 00:43:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:43:49 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hitomi" wrote: > Hey Carol and Whizbang! I'm just going to add my tiny two pence to > this argument, and say that while I agree that both your points are > more than valid, though Whizbang, I too agree with Carol that we > sometimes like to take our own theories for granted, I still don't > particulary think Lily placed a charm on Harry, though she could > have. If she did, I'm prone to think it was a combination of that, > the prophecy, and the old magic (a.k.a. love) that DD speaks of > (that LV underestimates, because he despises it, and also because he > doesn't understand love) that saved Harry that night. > > The prophecy, in my opinion, would only work for whichever boy LV > chose (hence the phrase "the one"). He chose Harry. So when he > attacked that night, whatever universal clauses or magic are at work > concerning this prophecy, worked to have the Curse back-fired, and > thus, Harry marked as LV's equal. I don't believe Harry might have > necessarily had the power to begin with, we don't know, though it's > possible. But I do believe he has it now, because LV fulfilled that > element of the prophecy. And in fulfilling it, Harry is now somehow > his equal, and THAT more than likely saved him that night (at least > that's my half-formed theory). > > ~ Hitomi, who hopes Carol isn't angry, because she likes a lot of > her posts, though she is more inclined to see Whizbang's point :) Carol: Thanks, Hitomi. Of course, I'm not angry. I don't know whether there's a charm, either, but the main point I was arguing here was that I don't think that Harry as a fifteen-month-old baby had any extraordinary powers (no more than Neville or Ron or Hermione at that age). His ability to perform accidental magic appears to me to be a consequence of the transfer of power from Voldemort and not a power he was born with. And I certainly don't think he deliberately cast a spell on Voldemort when he didn't even know he was a wizard and didn't have a wand. (I also noted the normal vocablulary of a fifteen-month-old, which does not include Avada Kedavra or Protego--and of course there's no countercurse for AK, anyway.) As I said, I don't know what blew up the house, but I doubt it was Harry. My other main point is that I think whizbang is confusing the events at Godric's Hollow with those foretold by the prophecy, which relate (except for "mark as his equal") to things that have not yet happened in the novel and which will not come to pass until Book 7. As I said, the prophecy is ambiguous and I don't think any of us can safely state that we "know" what it means or what will happen. Thank you for at least agreeing that we shouldn't take our own theories for granted. What I'm trying to say is that even when we list members disagree, we should look at the evidence other people present and consider the possibility that they may be right even if we don't want them to be. So (I'll say this only once) hats off to Pippin for the amount of effort he or she has put into supporting a thesis that I can never agree with. I do at least understand what makes you think as you do and I acknowledge that evidence exists for both sides. I'm trying to do the same in this case, to present the evidence for a theory that isn't even mine. (It belongs to Mandy.) Let me say again, for the benefit of people who have expressed confusion over what this list is about: The test of any theory is not whether it can be proven; of course it can't or it would cease to be a theory. The test is what sort of evidence can be presented for it. If we're going to disagree with a theory, we owe it to the other person to examine the evidence that person is presenting and to concede any points that we recognize as valid. I have tried to do that, and I encourage other people, whether they agree or disagree with me, to do the same. Carol, who asks Hitomi to look back over the threads of this argument. I think she'll see that she and I agree on most of the essential points, if not on the defense charm itself. P.S. What I really want is for SOMEBODY to look at this argument and back me up on a point or two, or help me unconfuse Whizbang, who doesn't seem to understand my detailed explanations of my arguments. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 01:04:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:04:16 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > Carol wrote: > See the Timelines at the Lexicon: > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000 > > Minerva McGonagall, as far as we can determine from information JKR > has provided on their respective ages, would have entered Hogwarts in > September 1931 and left it in June 1938; she did not return as a > teacher until 1956. Tom Riddle entered the school in September 1938, > three months after McGonagall left it, murdered Myrtle in 1943 and > his father and grandparents in the summer of 1944, and left Hogwarts > in 1945. He did not reappear until the 1970s, when he began gathering > supporters, few of whom connected Lord Voldemort with > Tom Riddle, model Head Boy at Hogwarts. > > There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship with > McGonagall. > > > Erin: > I think that's a little harsh. Carol: Come on, Erin. I could say that you're being "harsh" with me. Maybe you mean a bit too strong? (As I said, I have a tendency to state my points and conclusions a little too definitively. I'm working on it. Bear with me a little bit, okay?) This is the interview the Lexicon > gives as the source for McGonagall's timeline. > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/1000- > scholastic-chat.htm > > and here is the exact quote from that interview: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Q: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors > Dumbledore and McGonagall? > > A: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a > sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than > Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This interview takes place in October 2000, after GoF was published. > Going by the Lexicon timeline, where GoF ends in June 1995, that > would make McGonagall born in 1925, not starting Hogwarts until > around 1936. However, the Lexicon seems to have interpreted JKR's > words as meaning McGonagall was 70 at the start of Harry's first > year. Unless I'm missing an interview, I don't really know why > they've decided to do that. > > The Lexicon even acknowledges the uncertainty of their McGonagall > birthdate by putting a little c., standing for circa, or "about" > before both the 1920 birthdate and the 1931 entering Hogwarts date. > > In other words, the Lexicon timeline is not set in stone, and there's > no reason that McGonagall couldn't have been as little as two years > ahead of Tom Riddle. Maybe liking slightly older girls is one of > the "strange likenesses" Tom and Harry have in common. :-) Carol: I think, though I can't go into detail because I should be doing something else, that there's at the least a five-year gap in their ages. I think a two-year gap is pushing it. And I think that the chances of McGonagall as much as kissing a much younger Slytherin boy are slim to none. And since JKR has said that she's not going to have Hermione becoming a teenage unwed mother, I think we can assume that premarital sex between characters fifty or so years before the current events isn't part of the backstory. > Erin: > As you pointed out, as yet there's no canon basis for Tom showing an > interest in girls at all. Of course, there are quite a lot of facts > missing from Tom's background as it stands, so I don't think there's > room to rule it out, either. Carol: But without canon, all we have is speculation based on what we know of the characters. And in this case, it doesn't fit. > > Carol wrote: > In fact, JKR seems to have arranged the time frame so that > > McGonagall would have no contact with Tom Riddle either as a fellow > > student or a teacher. > > Erin: > That is a matter of opinion. When I saw the interview, my first > thought was that JKR had purposely arranged it so that McGonagall, > Hagrid, and Dumbledore all knew Riddle from his school days. > Carol: Not to be rude, but of course it's a matter of opinion. That's why I said "seems." (Blame the English language for the expression "in fact," which seems to be used to introduce opinion. I'll try to avoid it in future.) At any rate, we do know that Dumbledore taught Tom Riddle and Hagrid was his near-contemporary, but it doesn't appear (to me) as if any other characters actually knew him at school. Molly and Arthur Weasley are (apparently) too old; Lucius Malfoy and the Des were too young. In my opinion, part of Tom's mystery is that nobody (except the also mysterious Dumbledore) really knows him. Carol From tim at marvinhold.com Thu Jan 29 23:45:23 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:45:23 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89941 Lizvega wrote: > Neville accidentally sprays stinksap on himself, Harry, Ginny, and > Luna in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the way to > school. Later, in the MOM the only ones who aren't seriously hurt > are Neville, Ginny, Luna, and Harry. Also, the same four are very > dumbfounded by the Veil in the Death Chamber. Interesting correlation. However I would not call Ginny's broken ankle a nonserious injury, so I think that weakens your case a bit. Of course it is possble that she could have been hurt worse. > Is the plant some sort of protection device? If, so, is it too much > of a coincidence that Uncle Vernon said 'mimble wimble' and Dudley > was only given a tail moments later? I seriously doubt that Vernon's "mimble wimble" had anything to do with magic. Tim From erinellii at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 02:55:06 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:55:06 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89942 Carol wrote: > > There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship with McGonagall. > > > > Erin: > > I think that's a little harsh. > > Carol: > Come on, Erin. I could say that you're being "harsh" with me. Maybe > you mean a bit too strong? (As I said, I have a tendency to state my > points and conclusions a little too definitively. I'm working on it. > Bear with me a little bit, okay?) Erin: Sorry, you're right, the word I was looking for was strong. I meant I thought it oo strong to state unequivocally that there was "no room" for it when the lexicon itself acknowledged the uncertainty of the timeline. My apologies. > Carol: > I think, though I can't go into detail because I should be doing > something else, that there's at the least a five-year gap in their > ages. I think a two-year gap is pushing it. And I think that the > chances of McGonagall as much as kissing a much younger Slytherin boy are slim to none. And since JKR has said that she's not going to have Hermione becoming a teenage unwed mother, I think we can assume that premarital sex between characters fifty or so years before the current events isn't part of the backstory. Erin: Take all the time you need to answer, I know how it feels to have other stuff to do. But I am curious; why a five-year gap? Why not two years? I personally think two or three is the length of time suggested by the interview. Seven is what the Lexicon is pushing. So any particular reason for five? As for the chances of McGonagall falling for a younger student, I can easily see it happening. She and Hermione are so often compared that I tend to imagine young McGonagall as Hermione-- but without the friendship of Harry and Ron. Think how lonely Hermione is the first half of book 1. And she, Ron, and Harry would never have been friends without the incident of the troll. How often can you count on a troll barging into the school? Not too often. So I imagine McGonagall as a lonely, high-achieving nerd. And then along comes Tom Riddle. Handsome, charming, popular Tom Riddle who also makes perfect grades, something that McGonagall values highly. And he wants to go out with her. I think she'd fall right into his arms. Easy prey. Also, I want to say that there is no premartial sex in the theory. That is actually why the theory has them married, because I also didn't think Rowling planned to address premarital sex. Erin From BrwNeil at aol.com Fri Jan 30 02:52:20 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:52:20 EST Subject: Do we need any more death cases? Message-ID: <1e7.1865a876.2d4b20e4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89943 I think we all worry about our favorite character being killed off especially when JKR has shown herself capable of doing so. I worry most about Hermione because she is Muggle born. Voldemort was defeated the first time because of the love of Harry's Muggle born mother. The books have constantly harped on the subject of pure bloods and mudbloods. Somehow I feel that Harry will not be alone when the final blow against Voldemort is struck. The trio is made up of a pureblood, a halfblooded and a Muggle blood. It would seen proper for the mudblood to be instrumental in Voldemort's final defeat. I just hope she doesn't die in the process. Neil Read and discuss Hogwarts Exposed and its sequel at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsExposed/ Stories also available at http://portkey.org/ author Neil, http://www.schnoogle.com/ author Neil, http://www.fanfiction.net/~neil1 author Neil1 and http://www.adultfanfiction.net/ author Neil. Chapter fourteen of Hogwarts Too Exposed - A Slytherin Among Us has been posted. Look for chapter fifteen February 9, 2004 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 03:25:48 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:25:48 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Neville accidentally sprays stinksap on himself, Harry, Ginny, and > Luna in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the way to > school. Later, in the MOM the only ones who aren't seriously hurt > are Neville, Ginny, Luna, and Harry. Also, the same four are very > dumbfounded by the Veil in the Death Chamber. > > Is the plant some sort of protection device? Jen: I mentioned this same thought recently and someone wrote that Luna wasn't actaully sprayed with the Stinksap because she had the magazine in front of her. I didn't investigate then, but this time I looked it up: "Liquid squirted from every boil on the plant, thick, stinking dark green jets of it; they hit the ceiling, the windows and spattered Luna Lovegood's magazine." (US, chap. 10, p. 187) Is the UK version different, anyone? If not, then it's safe to say Luna *could* have been sprayed with sap where the magazine wasn't covering her. So, since we know the Mimbulus has an "amazing defensive mechanism, it's not much of a stretch to say it could offer extra defenses to anyone touching the sap! Also, Tim mentioned in post 89941 that he wouldn't consider Ginny's broken ankle a non-serious injury. Since that's a subjective point, I was thinking about the time each took to heal after the injuries. Ron and Hermione were the ones with the most severe injuries that took the longest time to heal. Ginny's ankle "had been mended in a thrice" and Neville's nose "had likewise been returned to its normal size and shape.." (Chap. 38, p. 846). Any repair needed to Harry and Luna isn't mentioned. So, the Stinksap Defensive Theory still lives!! And somehow it could be connected to the Mesmerizing Veil Theory, unless we find out Ginny can also see the thestrals and just hasn't mentioned it to anyone.... From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 23:04:46 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:04:46 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89945 > Janet: > > > I think that's one of the reason the whole Harry Potter series is > so > > appealing to so many age groups: J.K. has a good grasp on > universal > > archetypal themes. > > > > Thoughts? > > Frost: > Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the archetypes. > Yes, a lot of the characters have similarities, but they often break > free of them. If she stuck through with archetypes (which is a > dumbing and destroying plague upon fantasy writing) we wouldn't be > here arguing about who (or what) Snape is, or whether or not Harry > will be good or evil, or live or die or be destroyed. We wouldn't > be so suspicious of Dumbledore, we would know that Ron was always by > Harry's side. Hitomi: I agree and disagree with both you, Frost, and Janet. I think there are some archetypal themes in the novels, the good vs. evil theme is constantly present, but what I got from your post, Frost, is that even though there are "good guys" and "bad guys," Rowling continues to keep her characters quite human. She gives us reasons for why the evil side might have turned out the way they are, though it's never an excuse, nor justifiable, just understandable. And she makes her heroes flawed and uncertain; she lets them grow and fall, as we all do, ultimately making them stronger in the end, I think, or at least more ready to face what's coming. I see those archetypes most predominantly in old forms of literature, especially European. More modern fantasy and science fiction has mostly dropped them, and I'll go out on a limb and say Rowling's appeal is probably her mixture of both. In the first books, especially, there was a more defined good vs. evil, but now that Harry has grown, he is, of course, learning that the world is constantly a hazy gray, and very rarely simply black and white. That of course, includes himself and any he considers friend or foe. > I think that the archetypes pervade our society. When we see a > hero, we expect the good buddy that will stick through thick and > thin. We expect there to be a mentor, we expect a nemesis. I think > JKR has all of those in the books, but then she takes it and makes > it her own. Snape fits no archetype that I can think of, and I > think he is a extremely post-modern character. Harry is not, as Dr. > Zipes puts it, the perfect male role-model. His boy-scout days are > over, as we can see with his unreasoning and selfish hate of Snape > at the end of OoP. He thinks that he'll never forgive Snape. What > does he have to forgive Snape for? Snape responded to Harry's plea > the only way he could, considering how dangerous his Order work is. > (not that we really know WHAT it is, just that it's required of him > to hide his membership, and what side he is on.) It was because of > Snape's actions that Harry and the DA members were rescued from > certain defeat. (In essence, he called in the Calvary). And now > Dr. Zipes' "perfect" Harry hates him, because he needs someone to > pin Sirius's death on, and he can't accept that something's don't > have blame, or that sometimes everyone is at fault. Hitomi: No Harry is not perfect. But I always looked at a role-model as someone you admire for their imperfection as well as what little about them is good, considering we're talking that role-models are always human. I don't think Harry is put on a pedestal, but more admired for the fact that he is who he is, despite having been through what he has. Admired for being flawed, as well as "good." Someone you can see yourself as a lot of the time, in other words. The only archetype I've ever seen as true would be Biblical. God vs. Satan, Christ vs. Humanity; and in that context, old European works mostly try to reiterate. Modern literature is quite different, though such archetypes do still exist, and I think we still need them to an extent, but that is my own religious view. Everything comes down to God vs. the Devil to a Christian, and finding Christ in yourself. Meaning as a human we're naturally evil, born into sin, and what good there lies within us is Christ. I also always viewed Harry's reaction to Snape as incredibly human. Normal human response to grief. Harry wants to resent the world for what Sirius went through, the world treated Sirius badly, and now he's dead, so Harry blames those whom he felt mistreated Sirius, including himself. He wants to find the guilt in everyone concerning Sirius's death, because as far as Harry is concerned, it was still ultimately his own fault. His deep-seated guilt, resentment, as well as his feeling of enmity towards Snape is unreasonable. He's grieving. That's what people do when they grieve; the world is suddenly a terrible place to exist in. I find it a bit cynical to say everyone might be at fault. No one was at fault for Sirius's death. It will just take Harry a long time to come to terms with that fact, especially with the circumstances surrounding Sirius's death. Which is totally normal, and again, an example of Frost's point. That Rowling's characters are, if anything, simply human. > Archetypes aren't people. Archetypes are symbols. Harry is not > a symbol. This isn't a morality play. This isn't an allegory. > There is no Red Crosse Knight who comes charging in on his white > horse to face the dragon Temptation. If ever there were archetypes > in the story, the characters wore the robes awkwardly, with the > sleeves slipping off the shoulders, and their respective shields > dragging on the ground. By now I think they have rather lost them. Hitomi: I'll diagree with that, in I think there is a morality play. JKR herself has said the main theme is good vs. evil, that these are very moral books. We all hold archetypes within ourselves, what good and evil there is within us. You can't have one without the other; it's the dichotomy of human existence - yin and yang, if you will. I think I just view it as Rowling has molded the archetypes to her own design, while keeping her characters, her antagonists and her heroes, as completely and totally human. Nothing more, nothing less. > In summery of my statement: Yes, there is a loose framework of > archetypes, but what is there is a mere ghost of those archetypes: > insubstantial not effecting the "real" world. Hitomi: Again, I think archetypes always affect the real world. You can't escape stereotypes, nor can you escape that which is good and evil within us. The point is to try to convey, and ultimately illustrate, both. So, again, I agree with both Janet and Frost, two different extremes. The mixture of extremes is what usually exists in the real world, anyway, and here we are, talking about fiction ;) ~ Hitomi, who loves Harry and the other characters for their flaws, too From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 01:18:06 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:18:06 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89946 Hitomi wrote: > Hey Carol and Whizbang! I'm just going to add my tiny two pence > > to this argument, and say that while I agree that both your points > are more than valid, though Whizbang, I too agree with Carol that > we sometimes like to take our own theories for granted, I still > don't particulary think Lily placed a charm on Harry, though she > could have. If she did, I'm prone to think it was a combination > of that, the prophecy, and the old magic (a.k.a. love) that DD > speaks of (that LV underestimates, because he despises it, and > also because he doesn't understand love) that saved Harry that > night. > > The prophecy, in my opinion, would only work for whichever boy LV > chose (hence the phrase "the one"). He chose Harry. So when he > attacked that night, whatever universal clauses or magic are at > work concerning this prophecy, worked to have the Curse back- > fired, and thus, Harry marked as LV's equal. I don't believe > Harry might have necessarily had the power to begin with, we don't > know, though it's possible. But I do believe he has it now, > because LV fulfilled that element of the prophecy. And in > fulfilling it, Harry is now somehow his equal, and THAT more than > likely saved him that night (at least that's my half-formed theory). > Whizbang here: I'm baffled again. Why would the opening phrase of the prophecy be, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches," if he didn't have the power? Wouldn't it have said something like, "The one who will have the power to vanquish the dark lord approaches"? And if Neville was also a possibility, it would have to be different again. "Between those approaching the dark lord will choose and mark one who will then have the power to vanquish him." I don't know. The first phrase of the prophesy seems kind of cut and dried. From elfundeb at comcast.net Fri Jan 30 04:27:50 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:27:50 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89947 > Carol wrote: > See the Timelines at the Lexicon: > > There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship with > McGonagall. > > > Erin: > In other words, the Lexicon timeline is not set in stone, and there's > no reason that McGonagall couldn't have been as little as two years > ahead of Tom Riddle. Maybe liking slightly older girls is one of > the "strange likenesses" Tom and Harry have in common. :-) > Debbie: While I think the Lexicon is wonderful, and have nothing but admiration for its keeper, I have to agree with Erin on this one. We really have no idea what JKR meant when she said McGonagall was "a sprightly 70". As Erin pointed out, this could have been intended to be her age at the end of GoF as easily as the beginning of the first book. Perhaps even more importantly, this is not something she wrote in the books. Interview statements, IMO, are not as reliable as what she wrote into the books. With the written word, she has time to reread, rethink, rewrite, and have it reviewed before it is published. In an interview, OTOH, there is no time for any of these things. She is asked a question, and it is answered. I doubt she had time to think through her answer first. Even if she did, numbers and dates don't seem to be her strong point. Seventy is the kind of round number that gets tossed out in an off- the-cuff response (as is Dumbledore's stated age of 150, which she offered in the same breath), and I don't think we should necessarily interpret the statement as her being *exactly* seventy at a particular date she was thinking of. To me, it's a ballpark number meaning she was 70 at some point in the series - and so was Tom Riddle. The possibility of a past McGonagall-Riddle SHIP is not a new theory, and it's my favorite explanation for a number of apparent oddities in McGonagall's portrayal, starting with her refusal to celebrate Voldemort's downfall in the very first chapter of PS/SS and including the odd fact that she began teaching at Hogwarts in mid-term, in December of 1956, which definitely suggests that she may have arrived at Hogwarts in need of protection. Debbie From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 30 06:53:44 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:53:44 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89948 Frost:I think that "mimblewimble" is too articulated to be included > amongst these. I don't knwo what he was trying to say, but if she > just wanted him muttering, she could have just said so. I think > that it has a possibility of meaning something. spang: Well, if I remember rightly, Harry also says jiggeryhiggery hocuspocus besides mimblewimble. Are all these too "meaningful" then? And yes as the original post said( didn't have the time to dig it up sorry), it is not right to say that those who were covered in the stinksap were the ones who didn't suffer extensive damage. Because you see, Luna wasn't covered in the first place because she had raised her book. So that's it then. From spang_b at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 30 06:57:00 2004 From: spang_b at yahoo.co.in (spang_b) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:57:00 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89949 Frost:I think that "mimblewimble" is too articulated to be included > amongst these. I don't knwo what he was trying to say, but if she > just wanted him muttering, she could have just said so. I think > that it has a possibility of meaning something. spang: Well, if I remember rightly, Harry also says jiggeryhiggery hocuspocus besides mimblewimble. Are all these too "meaningful" then? And yes as the original post said( didn't have the time to dig it up sorry), it is not right to say that those who were covered in the stinksap were the ones who didn't suffer extensive damage. Because you see, Luna wasn't covered in the first place because she had raised her book. So that's it then. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 08:47:37 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:47:37 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89950 > > bboy_mn: > > First, I question any real connection between Mimbulus Mimbletonia and > 'mimblewimble'. > > All JKR is trying to do, is describe an indecipherable mumbled vocal > untterance. > > Converting assorted non-verbal vocalizations to text is not an easy > task. It's very difficult to write them in a way that is as > comprehendable to the read as it is to the writer. > (Snip exapmles) > > So, in my opinon, 'mimblewimble' is just a soft muttered > indecipherable vocalization. Ginger, weirdo that she is responds: I was curious and looked it up in the Latin translation: "ineptius aliquas sensu carentes sibilavit" ineptius: foolish, silly, inept, awkward... aliquas: somewhat, to some extent sensu: thoughts, ideas (I may be wrong on this one-just learning) carentes: couldn't find a darn thing-?help? sibilavit: hissing, whistling, rustling So, I gather that he foolishly mumbled something. In other words: meaningless, just kind of whatever came out of his mouth. I checked this out because the actual spell "Wingardium Leviosa" just stays as is in the Latin. Of course, that was Latin to begin with;), but I figured that if mimblewimble was a "real" spell, it would have kept some sort of form, only Latinized. Did that make any sense? Mimblium Wimbliosa, Ginger From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 09:03:03 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:03:03 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89951 Catherine McK wrote: > Is the Dark Mark a two-way connection? I think probably not, else > there would be no point in Karkaroff fleeing, and no possibility of > interesting conspiracy if LV knew where all the DEs were (also > Hermione's coins, based on the same charm, are changeable only by her, > not the holders). That said, the mark might indicate if the bearer > died, not that that is any help here as Crouch is alive. Ginger: Oooh, Catherine! You got me thinking! Crouch's mark could come in handy. Think on it: Canon: DE's have Dark Marks. LV can summon them by pressing the Dark Mark of one of his followers. When summoned, the Dark Mark burns upon their arm. The Dark Mark is visible to others. So, if Crouch is in the Rutabega ward at St. Mungo's, someone could be monitering his mark to find out when/if LV is summoning his minions. Whether or not they could use this to find out more information is up for grabs, but they would know at least that something was up. Snape's mark could be used also, but if LV has doubts about him, he may have "deactivated" it. I guess that all depends on what Snape is doing for the Order and how he is doing it. Just a thought that entered my mind. Ginger, who is sick of -30 temps! And that's without the windchill. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 30 10:40:59 2004 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:40:59 -0000 Subject: why the order? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89953 wrote: > Dumbledore starts the order of phoenix the second time in the > > fifth book. But what was the reason for starting it the first time? The > > ministry then was fully involved in resisting Voldemort so why the > > need to start a secret group in the first place? Just because the ministry's involved doesn't mean there's no need for a secret organization involved in resisting Voldemort. The Ministry's pretty easy to infiltrate (as we've seen this time around with all the spies/accidental passing of information etc.) compared to a secret order in which everyone knows everyone else's background. From robersondd at comcast.net Fri Jan 30 05:24:37 2004 From: robersondd at comcast.net (Debbie Roberson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:24:37 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89954 I've spent about 4 hours searching archives and rereading bits of the books and can't find the confirmation I'm looking for, so I've decided to post to the list at large..... Most everyone assumes that James Potter was of Gryffindor House - but I can't find any specific canon reference that explicitly states that as fact. The HP Lexicon gives us 2 references; the first is the online interview with Scholastic wherein someone (making an assumption) asks what position James played on the Gryffindor Quidditch team, and JKR simply replies that he was a Chaser. That, IMO, is not at all conclusive evidence she didn't say he wasn't Gryffindor, but she didn't say that he was either. The HP Lexicon also says that James' House was confirmed by Harry in CH 31 of OP. I've just reread the chapter twice and can find no mention of James anywhere. Am I just missing it? Debbie R. From bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 05:34:25 2004 From: bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com (bluejay_2112) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:34:25 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89955 Frost: > Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the archetypes. I believe archetypes are universal, but they don't have to be predictable. :o) An individual uses many archetypes in carrying out their own personal mission or "contracts" with others. An archetype can be streeeeetched to mean different things. For example, there are many different types of "heros", including the 'anti-hero'. I think Snape has some obvious Archetypes: Coward/Bully Alchemist Spy Mentor/Teacher Saboteur However, I don't think his character has been fleshed out enough to know what exactly he's doing...and why! Because the characters are actually using more than one archetypes, and they interact with other character archetypes, it is that dynamic that keeps you guessing. Janet http://NewAge.BellaOnline.com From bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 05:41:55 2004 From: bluejay_2112 at yahoo.com (bluejay_2112) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:41:55 -0000 Subject: Archetypes as Symbols? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89956 Hi Frost, all: I do not agree that Archetypes are symbols. They are observable patterns of behavior that humans use. And yes, there are archetypal themes such as good vs. evil, death and rebirth, etc. I have written an article called "Seeing Yourself and Life Sybolically" precisely about archetypes and how they "dance" with other people's archetypes...making a "drama" of sorts. It can be found here: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art8998.asp For example, here is a listing of over 70 archetypes: http://myss.com/ThreeArchs.asp We all use them, and so do characters in books--including the HP series. Dumbledore is Teacher/Mentor and Wizard and many other things. Everyone has a "Child" and a "Victim" and a "Prostitute" (where we "sell out") and a "Saboteur". Just some additional thoughts... Janet http://NewAge.BellaOnline.com From vikkigoult at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 30 09:45:14 2004 From: vikkigoult at yahoo.co.uk (Victoria) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:45:14 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89957 Frost: Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the archetypes. Yes, a lot of the characters have similarities, but they often break free of them.... Snape fits no archetype that I can think of, and I think he is a extremely post-modern character... This isn't a morality play. This isn't an allegory. Hi, I've just joined this group and this is my first post :) I think Snape actually might fall into an archetype; that of the Shapeshifter. The Shapeshifter's loyalities are ambiguous or will change at some point. They are there to produce tension as neither the Hero, nor the reader can ever be fully sure whether to trust them. They also often act as the catylyst for a change to occur in the Hero themselves. By the end, their true intentions are usually made clear, wherever their loyalities lie. I do think that JKR uses archetypes, she seems to enjoy the fairytale model, but has adapted it in her own way, made it all more real, less predictable and therefore more meaningful to the audience. The characters can transcend their achetypical boundaries to become tangible people in their own right. I agree that it this ability to take 2-D paperdolls and breath real life into them, that makes me love her stories! Yet I also partially disagree with your assertion that the the Harry Potter stories are in no way akin to a morality play or an allegory. I think that in some ways this is precisely JKR's intentions. As each story has developed, the fictional world in which Harry lives has become increasingly more morally complex. JKR has discussed (I believe) that there are some allegorical aspects to the story. I'll admit that this is no Black&White After School Special lecture upon morality, but they are nonetheless, very moral books. We follow Harry as he struggles to make sense of this world with it's ever changing allegiances and threats. As all his pre-conceptions come tumbling around him and he is forced to adapt to new circumstances whilst things he took for granted were constant are suddenly snatched away from him. The reader is also invited to examine in detail the moral issues that are raised each step of the way. So I think they are moral stories, but very evolved ones. Sorry for rambling a little there - sleep dep ;) From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 30 11:29:42 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:29:42 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89958 Debbie wrote: The HP Lexicon also says that James' House was confirmed by Harry in CH 31 of OP. I've just reread the chapter twice and can find no mention of James anywhere. Am I just missing it? Berit replies: I don't have the book with me, but the HP Lexicon is probapby referring to the incident where Ron is ruffling his hair and Harry is forcibly reminded of another Gryffindor player. James's name is not mentioned, but it's clear that Harry is thinking aobut seeing his father ruffling up his hair in the pensieve scene. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 30 11:42:08 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:42:08 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89959 Ginger wrote: Snape's mark could be used also, but if LV has doubts about him, he may have "deactivated" it. Berit replies: I doubt Snape's DE-mark has been deactivated. At the end of GoF, Snape tells Fudge and Dumbledore that the mark burned black just an hour ago, so at least it was higly functional at that time. Also, do you really think Voldemort could or would want to deactivate any DE's mark? He'd want all DE's, whether they had betray him or not, never to be able to escape the feeling of his evil presence... It's in his nature not to let anyone escape his clutches. I believe Impostor! Moody's thoughts reflects his Master's: "What I hate most is a DE who walked free"... And his words to Snape: There are spots who'll never come off, if get my meaning" (not the exact wording)... It's clear Crouch Jr knew Snape to be a traitor. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jan 30 12:23:00 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:23:00 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > Ginger wrote: >> I doubt Snape's DE-mark has been deactivated. At the end of GoF, > Snape tells Fudge and Dumbledore that the mark burned black just an > hour ago, so at least it was higly functional at that time. Also, do > you really think Voldemort could or would want to deactivate any DE's > mark? He'd want all DE's, whether they had betray him or not, never > to be able to escape the feeling of his evil presence... It's in his > nature not to let anyone escape his clutches. I believe Impostor! > Moody's thoughts reflects his Master's: "What I hate most is a DE who > walked free"... And his words to Snape: There are spots who'll never > come off, if get my meaning" (not the exact wording)... It's clear > Crouch Jr knew Snape to be a traitor. > And - not that I have my books with me - but there's that remark of Sirius in OOP, The Most Ancient and Noble House of Black. He's referring to Regulus, but... Approximate quote: "It's a lifetime of service or death" or words to that effect. Which kind of stymies the idea that Snape can just hand in his notice or take a sabbatical. June From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 30 13:08:23 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:08:23 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thetruthisoutthere_13" wrote: > > The one flaw I see in your argument is that Tom Riddle took the time > to create his diary while still at Hogwarts and presumably before he > first entered the chamber of secrets. Plus he was already calling > himself "Lord Voldemort" amongst his friends at school. Creating the > diary to preserve his sixteen year old self shows quite a bit of > foresight, actually, that shows more foresight from Voldemort than > we saw in OotP. > > I guess the next proof you need for your theory is 1) whether Tom > started calling himself Voldemort before or after he entered the > chamber, and 2) if he created the diary before or after entering the > chamber. > Firstly I must apologise for intimating that the members were failing to uphold the standards of the site by not telling me that I'm spouting a load of rubbish. It seems that they were just pausing for breath before giving their judicial, critical assessments of my maunderings. Back to the matter under discussion. You've raised valid points that are difficult to resolve with the scant information we have to hand. In fact there are other questions related to the first of your points in particular. For a chief baddy in a series noted for it's detail there are some blank spots that I would be happy to see filled in. How and when did Tom find out that his mother was descended from old Slytherin? Even if this is fact and not a conceit, what on earth made him think he was the Heir? Why would he even consider this when he himself is one of the 'differently ancestored' that Slytherin wanted banned from Hogwarts? But, being of a nasty disposition myself, I'd consider it an ironic joke for Salazar to use one of the hated mudbloods as his tool for their ultimate destruction. Nicely vicious. We badly need a timeline. Tom tells us in canon that he spent five years before cracking the secret of entering the Chamber, but as highlighted above we have no idea *when* he started calling himself Lord Voldemort or if the diary was written in real time or in retrospect. I go for the latter, mostly because when Harry first communicates with it, it tells him that it "holds memories" not that it is a record. Thin maybe, but an arguable interpretation. The "Lord Voldemort is my past, present and future." quote is a worry. Is it Diary!Tom emphasising that he is only an episode from Voldy's lifeline or is it an indication that Voldy was there before Tom became aware of him and Tom is dependent on Voldy for his future existence? Obviously I like the latter interpretation, it adds a little more weight to my suppositions. And no, it doesn't absolve Tom from being a rotten little shit in his own right, but could mean that Tom has not been the true and only begetter of all the nastiness of the past 30 years. A dark entity, able to possess mortals in it's aim of propagating an old evil is not a particularly uncommon device in the annals of horror and fantasy. Geoff mentions the old Quatermass series, though to be fair that was a physical entity (but fun none the less and it was destroyed by appealing to the remnants of its human host); Voldy, whether or not he is other than Tom, seems to be able to survive for unknown periods of time even without a physical form. (Why do I get visions of Shirley Maclaine claiming to channel the spirit of Nefertiti? True horror, right there.) Disappointment has been voiced that I may be failing in my role as a FEATHERBOA flag-waver in postulating possible wimpish and blood- free resolution that absolves Tom from blame. Never! Tom no longer exists except as maybe fragments of a lost personality. The Voldy entity must still be smashed as violently as possible, hopefully with gore and bodies strewn hither and yon. Admittedly, crunching Voldy's custom-made corporeal container may not destroy the evil within, it could transfer to a new victim. Now who might that be? Makes one wonder at DD's dictum "There are worse things than death" Kneasy From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 13:44:17 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:44:17 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > And yes as the original post said( didn't have the time to dig it > up sorry), it is not right to say that those who were covered in the > stinksap were the ones who didn't suffer extensive damage. Because > you see, Luna wasn't covered in the first place because she had > raised her book. So that's it then. Jen: Not necessarily. The UK version may be different, but the US version doesn't say definitively that Luna didn't get *any* Stinksap on her, just that the magazine raised in front of her was covered in Stinksap. I wrote more about this in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89944 Jen Reese From s_ings at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 13:45:43 2004 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:45:43 -0000 Subject: Convention Alley website and registration now open! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89963 The Convention Alley Planning Committee is pleased to announce the opening of the official website of Convention Alley 2004: http://www.conventionalley.org/. We are also pleased to announce the start of registration for Convention Alley. If you visit: http://www.conventionalley.org/registration.html, you will find a complete list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about registration. Here is a brief summary of the more important points to consider before registering: Dates of Convention: July 30-August 1, 2004 Location of Convention: University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Ontario (Canada) Events/Meals Included in Registration: ? Admission to all the daytime programming sessions ? The meet and greet ? Saturday breakfast and lunch ? The birthday banquet (including a sit-down, three-course dinner) ? Movie admission ? Sunday breakfast and sit-down, three-course lunch ? Admission to such areas as the vendor marketplace, games room, etc. Registration does not include accommodations. We have reserved a block of rooms at the University of Ottawa residence, and will also provide a list of alternative accommodations. Cost: CAD $200.00 between February 1, 2004 and March 30, 2004 CAD $250.00 between March 31, 2004 and July 1, 2004 (no registrations will be accepted after July 1, 2004 and no on-site registration will be available) Age of Participants: Participants must be age 16 or older to attend the conference. Participants between the ages of 16 and 18 years old must be accompanied by a chaperone. Questions? Please contact us at: convention_alley2004 @ hotmail.com (without the spaces) regarding registration questions and at: hpottawa @ yahoo.no (without the spaces) for all other questions. We hope to see you there! ~Sheryll Townsend for the 2004 Convention Alley Planning Committee From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 14:34:45 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:34:45 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie Roberson" wrote: > > The HP Lexicon also says that James' House was confirmed by Harry in > CH 31 of OP. I've just reread the chapter twice and can find no > mention of James anywhere. Am I just missing it? Here's the US version (chap. 31, p. 704): "The truth was that Ron had just reminded Harry forcibly of another Gryffindor Quidditch player who had once sat rumpling his hair under this very tree." (Referring back to the Pensieve scene with James) I've read arguments that this quote doesn't *prove* James was in Gryffindor, that Harry is just assuming he was in Gryffindor and this is merely his POV. I'd like to find out the Marauders were in Slytherin, but that's just me :)! Jen Reese From free_lunch_club at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 16:01:31 2004 From: free_lunch_club at hotmail.com (thetruthisoutthere_13) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:01:31 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy > > A dark entity, able to possess mortals in it's aim of propagating > an old evil is not a particularly uncommon device in the annals of > horror and fantasy. . . . > Admittedly, crunching Voldy's custom-made corporeal container may > not destroy the evil within, it could transfer to a new victim. > Now who might that be? > > Makes one wonder at DD's dictum "There are worse things than death" There is two more Dumbledore quotes to keep in mind: (paraphrase) "It's our choices that define us more than our abilities" and (actual quote): "Remember, if the time should come when you have to make the choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort." If Voldemort is in fact possessed by some evil spirit and not acting under his free will, then Rowling's villian is acting contrary to her main points in the book of making good choices and doing what is right, not easy. Unless, of course, Voldemort chose to be possessed by true evil, and that chose would have to be a conscious choice and not blind seduction. If you think about it, Dudley, who is a contrast to Harry because they grew up in the same house, will always take the easy path, not the right one. Dudley, Draco, and Voldemort are on the same spectrum of the easy instead of right/moral path. Sirius, by all "nurture" standards, should have been on a similar path to Draco, yet chose the "right" path. I wonder how, or if, Rowling will account for the nature vs nurture question. -kg From catherinemck at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 16:08:57 2004 From: catherinemck at hotmail.com (catherinemckiernan) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:08:57 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" > wrote: > > Ginger wrote: > >> I doubt Snape's DE-mark has been deactivated. At the end of GoF, > > Snape tells Fudge and Dumbledore that the mark burned black just an > > hour ago, so at least it was higly functional at that time. Also, > do > > you really think Voldemort could or would want to deactivate any > DE's > > mark? He'd want all DE's, whether they had betray him or not, never > > to be able to escape the feeling of his evil presence... It's in > his > > nature not to let anyone escape his clutches. I believe Impostor! > > Moody's thoughts reflects his Master's: "What I hate most is a DE > who > > walked free"... And his words to Snape: There are spots who'll > never > > come off, if get my meaning" (not the exact wording)... It's clear > > Crouch Jr knew Snape to be a traitor. Me: I dunno. I thought Crouch was essentially playing the role Snape would expect of his enemy Moody. If I take it in the sense of Crouch to Snape, rather than Moody to Snape, I see it as a reminder, "so don't even think about it," rather than an indication that Crouch already thinks Snape a traitor. But it's a close thing. > > And - not that I have my books with me - but there's that remark of > Sirius in OOP, The Most Ancient and Noble House of Black. He's > referring to Regulus, but... > > Approximate quote: "It's a lifetime of service or death" or words to > that effect. Which kind of stymies the idea that Snape can just hand > in his notice or take a sabbatical. > > June Me: This to me indicates that Snape is still beleived by LV at least to be faithful. Although it is Sirius soeaking - maybe he's implying that Snape can't have truly broken with LV else he'd be dead. Catherine McK From catherinemck at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 16:11:38 2004 From: catherinemck at hotmail.com (catherinemckiernan) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:11:38 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > Catherine McK wrote: > > Is the Dark Mark a two-way connection? I think probably not, else > > there would be no point in Karkaroff fleeing, and no possibility of > > interesting conspiracy if LV knew where all the DEs were (also > > Hermione's coins, based on the same charm, are changeable only by > her, > > not the holders). That said, the mark might indicate if the bearer > > died, not that that is any help here as Crouch is alive. > > Ginger: > > Oooh, Catherine! You got me thinking! Crouch's mark could come in > handy. Think on it: > > Canon: > DE's have Dark Marks. > LV can summon them by pressing the Dark Mark of one of his > followers. > When summoned, the Dark Mark burns upon their arm. > The Dark Mark is visible to others. > > So, if Crouch is in the Rutabega ward at St. Mungo's, someone could > be monitering his mark to find out when/if LV is summoning his > minions. Whether or not they could use this to find out more > information is up for grabs, but they would know at least that > something was up. > Good suggestion! It would also be a handy way of telling whether Snape was being honest about his communications with Voldemort, if he does/doesn't report on his mark burning. Not that anyone would be suspicious of ol'Severus. Catherine McK From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 16:29:08 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:08 -0000 Subject: Filk: I Wanna Sock! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89968 Possibly the first filk on a Twisted Sister tune, I Wanna Sock! is to the tune of I Wanna Rock! Dedicated to all you 80's long haired, spandex wearing, headbangers. I know you're out there! Scene: Harry's bedroom during the Dursley's dinner with the Masons. Ignoring Harry's pleadings for silence, Dobby thrashes his magic guitar (with magic amp) and sings: I wanna sock! I wanna sock! I want a sock! I wanna sock! "Be trod down" they say, Well I got to say, and though I bang my head in pain, I say, NO! No! No, no, no, no, no! "Let's make Harry pay" Well, all I got to say, as to the stove I now foray, I say, NO! No! No, no, no, no, no! So if you ask me why I stay although I hate it, There's my enslavement, and I say to you: I wanna sock! I wanna sock! I want a sock! I wanna sock! There's a wizard that Is nothing like the rest, put the Dark Lord to the test And make him go! Go! Go, go, go, go, go. There's a plot that's hatched To kill the Muggleborn and Harry Potter put to scorn. Sir can't go! Go! Go, go, go, go, go. So I took all your posts, else you'd soon be joining the ghosts, There's only one more wish I'd wish come true: I wanna sock! I wanna sock! I want a sock! I wanna sock! Repeat and fade It was like a bad itch-I had to scratch it. I had that in my head for so long, I just had to do something with it. Ginger, who really misses those hair bands From june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jan 30 16:30:12 2004 From: june.diamanti at blueyonder.co.uk (junediamanti) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:30:12 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catherinemckiernan" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" > wrote: >> > And - not that I have my books with me - but there's that remark of > > Sirius in OOP, The Most Ancient and Noble House of Black. He's > > referring to Regulus, but... > > > > Approximate quote: "It's a lifetime of service or death" or words to > > that effect. Which kind of stymies the idea that Snape can just hand > > in his notice or take a sabbatical. > > > > June > > Me: This to me indicates that Snape is still beleived by LV at least > to be faithful. Although it is Sirius soeaking - maybe he's implying > that Snape can't have truly broken with LV else he'd be dead. I take that to mean not truly broken with Voldemort in the sense that Voldemort THINKS that Snape is still playing on his side. We don't know whether he is or isn't on his side (Voldemort's). And apologies if this reads like "he knows he knows he knows something". But all this who knows what when can get very confusing. Translated: Voldemort thinks Snape is genuinely playing for the Death Eaters. Because if he thought otherwise, he would have offed Snape by now. So if Snape is genuinely playing for the Phoenix side, he's successfully conned Voldemort - for now. We (the readers) don't know really whose side Snape is really on. For now. My long way of saying it... June From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 16:32:59 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:32:59 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spang_b" wrote: > Frost:I think that "mimblewimble" is too articulated to be included > > amongst these. I don't knwo what he was trying to say, but if she > > just wanted him muttering, she could have just said so. I think > > that it has a possibility of meaning something. > LizVega here: I think some of us may be forgetting just how indepth Jo's writing actually is. Some names, by her own admission, are just names that she liked, or thought sounded interesting. But, some of them are anagrams, some, if spelled backward have meanings (The miror of Erised engraving).If Uncle Vernon had muttered 'mimble wimble' in PS, and then in book 5 Neville shows up with a plant called 'mimble wimble'- how many of us would've picked up on that in about a second??? I would have. I always thought that scene with Hagrid in the shack by the sea was filled with meaning. It's the first time Harry is being introduced to magic, it's very important. And, also, Jo was writing these books for five years before PS was published. How much time do you think she spent on the scene where Harry is first introduced to the magical world? It's all speculation, of course, but Jo usually doesn't spell things out very clearly. I think a variation of the name 'mimbulus mimbletonia' sp? is a pretty big clue, especially since the password for the tower was also 'mimbulus mimbletonia', and it has a protective device. Jo has also said that some stuff is coming with the Dursley's that people probably aren't expecting. Does anyone think that's limited only to the protection we found out about in OOP? Everyone knew there was some kind of protection, we just wern't sure about the details. That doesn't seem like anything unexpected. Now, we also know that someone will be able to perform magic late in life, who has never shown the aptitude previously. I never said that I thought Vernon was a wizard. If he is, I don't even think he knows it. But, he suspects. On the other side of the spectrum, maybe he placed himself as Petunia's husband, because he 'can't' be a wizard anymore. Maybe, maybe, maybe. LizVega From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 17:10:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:10:11 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89971 > > Carol: > > I think, though I can't go into detail because I should be doing > > something else, that there's at the least a five-year gap in their > > ages. I think a two-year gap is pushing it. And I think that the > > chances of McGonagall as much as kissing a much younger Slytherin > boy are slim to none. And since JKR has said that she's not going to > have Hermione becoming a teenage unwed mother, I think we can assume > that premarital sex between characters fifty or so years before the > current events isn't part of the backstory. > > > Erin: > Take all the time you need to answer, I know how it feels to have > other stuff to do. But I am curious; why a five-year gap? Why not > two years? I personally think two or three is the length of time > suggested by the interview. Seven is what the Lexicon is pushing. > So any particular reason for five? > > Carol: I can't check this now because I'm rushed for time, but I think that McGonagall is 70, LV is 65, and Hagrid is 62 in GoF. I'm thinking of JKR's interviews plus the fifty-year gap between the first and second openings of the Chamber of Secrets. (I'm taking fifty years as an exact figure based on Hermione's reaction in CoS.) Maybe someone who knows the book and interviews inside out can provide links and page numbers. Right now, I shouldn't even be here! Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 17:18:29 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:18:29 -0000 Subject: Mended noses (Was: Mimble Wimble) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89972 Jen Reese wrote: > Ron and Hermione were the ones with the most severe injuries that > took the longest time to heal. Ginny's ankle "had been mended in a > thrice" and Neville's nose "had likewise been returned to its normal > size and shape.." (Chap. 38, p. 846). This is a silly little observation and hardly worth mentioning, but if Madam Pomfrey can mend broken noses "in a thrice," surely the healers or mediwizards at St. Mungo's can do it, too, yet several characters, including Dumbledore and Ludo Bagman show signs of broken noses that weren't magically mended. I wonder why. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 17:33:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:33:53 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > > > Carol wrote: > > See the Timelines at the Lexicon: > > > > There is no place in this time frame for a romantic relationship > with > > McGonagall. > > > > > > Erin: > > In other words, the Lexicon timeline is not set in stone, and > there's > > no reason that McGonagall couldn't have been as little as two > years > > ahead of Tom Riddle. Maybe liking slightly older girls is one of > > the "strange likenesses" Tom and Harry have in common. :-) > > > > Debbie: > > While I think the Lexicon is wonderful, and have nothing but > admiration for its keeper, I have to agree with Erin on this one. > We really have no idea what JKR meant when she said McGonagall > was "a sprightly 70". As Erin pointed out, this could have been > intended to be her age at the end of GoF as easily as the beginning > of the first book. > > Perhaps even more importantly, this is not something she wrote in > the books. Interview statements, IMO, are not as reliable as what > she wrote into the books. With the written word, she has time to > reread, rethink, rewrite, and have it reviewed before it is > published. In an interview, OTOH, there is no time for any of these > things. She is asked a question, and it is answered. I doubt she > had time to think through her answer first. Even if she did, > numbers and dates don't seem to be her strong point. > > Seventy is the kind of round number that gets tossed out in an off- > the-cuff response (as is Dumbledore's stated age of 150, which she > offered in the same breath), and I don't think we should necessarily > interpret the statement as her being *exactly* seventy at a > particular date she was thinking of. To me, it's a ballpark number > meaning she was 70 at some point in the series - and so was Tom > Riddle. > > The possibility of a past McGonagall-Riddle SHIP is not a new > theory, and it's my favorite explanation for a number of apparent > oddities in McGonagall's portrayal, starting with her refusal to > celebrate Voldemort's downfall in the very first chapter of PS/SS > and including the odd fact that she began teaching at Hogwarts in > mid-term, in December of 1956, which definitely suggests that she > may have arrived at Hogwarts in need of protection. > > Debbie Debbie, I know that the Lexicon states that she began teaching in December 1956, but do we have that in the books themselves? I thought she told Umbridge in OoP that she had been teaching for thirty(?) years, but I don't think that means thirty(?) years *exactly*, any more than Snape's fourteen years means that he's been teaching fourteen years to the day. I don't see any reason to think that either of them began teaching at any time other than the normal beginning of the term (September 1). Also, is the interview in which she gives Dumbledore's and McGonagall's ages the same one in which she says that Snape is 36 or 37 (meaning, I assume, 36 at the beginning of the term and 37 at the end)? We've been taking his age as fact and using it to calculate the ages of MWPP and Lily. If his age is more or less canonical, why wouldn't McGonagall's and Dumbledore's be? Carol, who apologizes for not having time to look all this up From zanelupin at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 17:55:10 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:55:10 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89974 Carol wrote: > Debbie, I know that the Lexicon states that she began teaching in > December 1956, but do we have that in the books themselves? I thought > she told Umbridge in OoP that she had been teaching for thirty(?) > years, but I don't think that means thirty(?) years *exactly*, any > more than Snape's fourteen years means that he's been teaching > fourteen years to the day. I don't see any reason to think that either > of them began teaching at any time other than the normal beginning of > the term (September 1). KathyK, with her book in hand responds: McGonagall marks December as the month she began. Have a look. >From OoP Chapter 15, "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" (US ed. p. 321): //"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge asked. "Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut.// KathyK From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 30 17:57:30 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:57:30 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Debbie, I know that the Lexicon states that she began teaching in > December 1956, but do we have that in the books themselves? I thought > she told Umbridge in OoP that she had been teaching for thirty(?) > years, but I don't think that means thirty(?) years *exactly*, any > more than Snape's fourteen years means that he's been teaching > fourteen years to the day. geoff: Yes, we do have that information. "'How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?' Professor Umbridge asked. 'Thirty-nine years this December,' said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut. Professor Umbridge made a note." (OOTP "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" p.287 UK edition) This is in the autumn term of 1995, so she definitely began in December 1956. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 30 17:59:50 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Robert Jones) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:59:50 -0000 Subject: What was Mrs. Weasley Thinking? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89976 In OOTP ch. 9 (p. 63 US ed.), when Mrs. Weasley sees that Ron is made Prefect she says "That's everyone in the family!" to which Fred replies "What are George and I, next door neighbors? Well, what was Mrs. Weasley thinking? How could she forget two of her children like that? (I'm giving Molly the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is not also forgetting about Ginny ? that is, she meant "That's everyone in the family so far!") If JKRis just giving a set up for one of the twin's jokes, it is kind of mean ? having a mother forget about two of her children right in front of them. But maybe Mrs. Weasley was caught up in the excitement of the moment and let something slip? Maybe Fred and George are not really her children? In PS/SS (ch 6, p. 92), the very first time we meet the Weasleys and the very first joke from Fred that we hear has Fred pretending to be George and then say "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?" I thought it was just a joke, but maybe it's a clue to something. From frost_indri at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:11:09 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:11:09 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89977 > Frost: > > Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the > archetypes. Janet: > I believe archetypes are universal, but they don't have to be > predictable. :o) An individual uses many archetypes in carrying out their own personal mission or "contracts" with others. An archetype can be streeeeetched to mean different things. For example, there are many different types of "heros", including the 'anti-hero'. > Frost: But in the end, an "archetype" is a category. Yes, a person can fit into an archetype, but that doesn't mean that they are the archetype. It is a way in literature that we have developed to name the commonalities of certain characters. When it comes down to it, I don't think JKR is looking at the characters and saying "Well, he's of this archetype, and this archetype, and this one over there is this..." I think she is viewing them and treating them as individuals, and their growth is subsequent of that. The archetypes are something that we as readers and critiques are applying after the fact. If she were trying to write the archetypes, she would be limited by them. Janet: > Because the characters are actually using more than one archetypes, > and they interact with other character archetypes, it is that > dynamic that keeps you guessing. > Frost: But that is only if you try to categorize them into pre-existing archetypes. As I said, I think there is the shadow of the archetypes in the characters, but she is using them, in a unique way. Part of that way, I believe, is not thinking of them in terms of archetypes. We can apply them after the fact because, well, we're human. We like to categorize things. Not to mention, to a certain degree every writer builds on the history of the stories before. > Hitomi: > I see those archetypes most predominantly in old forms of > literature, especially European. More modern fantasy and science > fiction has mostly dropped them, and I'll go out on a limb and say > Rowling's appeal is probably her mixture of both. In the first > books, especially, there was a more defined good vs. evil, but now > that Harry has grown, he is, of course, learning that the world is > constantly a hazy gray, and very rarely simply black and white. > That of course, includes himself and any he considers friend or foe. > Frost: ... Ok, I am really and very strongly disagreeing with you here. Mostly because I've been reading some books by authors about how they write Fantasy, and listened to a couple of them, and .. my god. They have lists of the archetypes the "must" be in the story for it to be a fantasy. You have to have the mentor, the hero, the strong female character, the weak female character, the good thief/ honorable rascal, etc. And you can find it in almost every fantasy there is. (that is my own opinion.) Fantasy writing is so bonded to the old myths and the influence of Tolkien that it is hard to break away from the archetypes. Which is very disappointing for me, since I do love fantasy, but I'm finding that it lacks the intellectual stimulation I need, in general. There are some that break that (Harry Potter, and Gregory Maguire's rewritings of the old fairytales (and new ones too) are examples of that) but... *sighs* the archetypes are there, and we've added modern-archetypes. I do think that archetypes can be applied to the Harry Potter series, but I don't think that JKR is thinking of her characters as archetypes, and therefore not actively using the archetypes. Again, if she was, she wouldn't have the ability to allow her characters to be so malleable and layered. Archetypes are overarching categories, and such generalizations are limiting. > > Hitomi: > No Harry is not perfect. But I always looked at a role-model as > someone you admire for their imperfection as well as what little > about them is good, considering we're talking that role-models are > always human. I don't think Harry is put on a pedestal, but more > admired for the fact that he is who he is, despite having been > through what he has. Admired for being flawed, as well as "good." > Someone you can see yourself as a lot of the time, in other words. > Frost: I agree with you, but I was responding to Dr. Zipes' rather... different POV. Hitomi: I also always viewed Harry's reaction to Snape as incredibly human. > Normal human response to grief. Harry wants to resent the world for > what Sirius went through, the world treated Sirius badly, and now > he's dead, so Harry blames those whom he felt mistreated Sirius, > including himself. He wants to find the guilt in everyone > concerning Sirius's death, because as far as Harry is concerned, it > was still ultimately his own fault. His deep-seated guilt, > resentment, as well as his feeling of enmity towards Snape is > unreasonable. He's grieving. That's what people do when they > grieve; the world is suddenly a terrible place to exist in. Frost: Yes, very human, but not perfect, IE not what Dr. Zipes saw Harry as. Personally, I think that Harry is very wrong for choosing to blame Snape. I think it's going to be one of those things that will have a very large negative effect, and I look forward to seeing how it's played out. I hope that in the end he will forgive Snape (the forgiveness would be for him, since really, Snape probably doesn't feel like he's done anything to be forgiven for.). But I do think that such a selfish emotional response is in keeping with Harry's character. However, it is that emotional response that defies the archetype that Zipes tried to put Harry in, because of it's selfishness. > I find > it a bit cynical to say everyone might be at fault. No one was at > fault for Sirius's death. It will just take Harry a long time to > come to terms with that fact, especially with the circumstances > surrounding Sirius's death. Which is totally normal, and again, an example of Frost's point. That Rowling's characters are, if > anything, simply human. > Frost: And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that everyone (well, who was involved) was at fault and no one. Dumbledore for trying to "keep him safe," Snape for needling him, Molly for treating him like a child half of the time, Harry for ignoring his gift (that would have allowed for so much of this to be avoided.) Dumbledore for not being honest with Harry, Harry for not thinking enough and rushing held-long and without thought into the MOM. The MOM for not wanting to believe Voldie was back, Voldemort for setting up the situation. Sirius himself for having treated Kreatcher the way he did. Kreatcher for his betrayal. Bellatrix for the final blow... etc. The list goes on. There were a lot of things that a lot of people did wrong to lead up to his death. Sirius's death could have been avoided, but due to a lot of different actions, beliefs, and non-actions by different people, he was condemned to die. Its very realistic and very tragic, and at the same time, unavoidable. No one knew how their actions would spread their effects so far. Everyone did as they thought best. How could they know? You can't blame them, even though they are at fault. Well, you can, but... *shrugs* what's the point? > Hitomi: > I'll disagree with that, in I think there is a morality play. JKR > herself has said the main theme is good vs. evil, that these are > very moral books. We all hold archetypes within ourselves, what > good and evil there is within us. You can't have one without the > other; it's the dichotomy of human existence - yin and yang, if you will. I think I just view it as Rowling has molded the archetypes to her own design, while keeping her characters, her antagonists and her heroes, as completely and totally human. Nothing more, nothing less. > Frost: Well, in the face of a quote from JKR herself, I'll consent to the morality play thing (though I was thinking more along the lines of the simplistic story of the The Third Shepherds Play.). I just think that the complexity of the moral questions being posed take it beyond that of a morality play. As for the archetypes, I don't think JKR is using them, in that she isn't setting people up as an archetypes or collection of archetypes. It's just that the characters unavoidably hold similarities to the archetypes due to a long history of story. Frost From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:12:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:12:56 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89978 Frost: > > Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the > archetypes. > > I believe archetypes are universal, but they don't have to be > predictable. :o) An individual uses many archetypes in carrying out > their own personal mission or "contracts" with others. An archetype > can be streeeeetched to mean different things. For example, there > are many different types of "heros", including the 'anti-hero'. > > I think Snape has some obvious Archetypes: > > Coward/Bully > Alchemist > Spy > Mentor/Teacher > Saboteur > > However, I don't think his character has been fleshed out enough to > know what exactly he's doing...and why! > > Because the characters are actually using more than one archetypes, > and they interact with other character archetypes, it is that > dynamic that keeps you guessing. Carol: I wonder if the people in this thread are using "archetype" in the same way. For me, it suggests the archetypes identified in Frazer's "Golden Bough"--those that appear in the myths of virtually every culture. IIRC, there's the maiden/mother/crone, the hero, the dying god. . . . It's been a very long time since I read it. (Is trickster on his list or is that only in Campbell?) At any rate, an archetype is the original model on which all others are based (paraphrased dictionary definition). I wonder if some of us are using archetype in some other way, possibly synonymous with "type" ("a thing or person that represents perfectly or in the best way a class or category," Random House College Dictionary, def. 4) or even stereotype (a standardized conception or misconception based on age, race, ses, etc., e.g., the WW's conception of Muggles). Just wondering if it would help if we defined our terms. Also, allegory and symbolism are not the same thing. I haven't seen any discussion of symbolism in the HP books (I might want to think about that), but she very definitely is not writing allegory, in which there's a one-on-one correspondence between characters and places and real-life things or conditions. Bunyan's Faithful and Slough of Despond immediately leap to mind. Tolkien states explicitly that he loathes allegory and has avoided ever since he first recognized its existence (or something like that!) I'm pretty sure that JKR would agree. Anyway, a character can have archetypal (or even stereotypical) traits without being an archetype (or stereotype). Snape, IMO, is neither one. He may be compounded of traits we've seen before in villains or anti-heroes, but I've never seen this particular combination of traits. We can predict the style of his speech and his movements, but never what he's going to say or do (other than give detentions and criticize the Gryffindors). IMO, he's his own character, sui generis. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:19:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:19:12 -0000 Subject: Archetypes as Symbols? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluejay_2112" wrote: > Hi Frost, all: > > I do not agree that Archetypes are symbols. They are observable > patterns of behavior that humans use. And yes, there are archetypal > themes such as good vs. evil, death and rebirth, etc. > > I have written an article called "Seeing Yourself and Life > Sybolically" precisely about archetypes and how they "dance" with > other people's archetypes...making a "drama" of sorts. It can be > found here: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art8998.asp > > For example, here is a listing of over 70 archetypes: > http://myss.com/ThreeArchs.asp We all use them, and so do characters > in books--including the HP series. Dumbledore is Teacher/Mentor and > Wizard and many other things. Everyone has a "Child" and a "Victim" > and a "Prostitute" (where we "sell out") and a "Saboteur". > > Just some additional thoughts... > > Janet > http://NewAge.BellaOnline.com Thanks for the link. At least now I know how you're defining your terms. I forgot to ask, though, in response to your previous post: At what point do you see Snape as acting like a coward? I think he's being deliberately contrasted with Karkaroff ("Flee, then. Flee!") Karkaroff runs off and hides; Snape stays put regardless of consequences. He also acted as spy before the fall of Voldemort "at great personal risk" and clearly is risking his life again at the end of GoF and by finding out what LV is saying to his Death Eaters ("That's your job, isn't it. Yes, Potter, that is my job." OoP, quoted from memory.) IMO, whatever Snape's faults (and he has plenty of them), cowardice is not one of them. Carol From robersondd at comcast.net Fri Jan 30 17:39:18 2004 From: robersondd at comcast.net (Debbie Roberson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:39:18 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89980 James' House was confirmed by Harry Jen Reese: > Here's the US version (chap. 31, p. 704): > > I've read arguments that this quote doesn't *prove* James was in > Gryffindor, that Harry is just assuming he was in Gryffindor and > this is merely his POV. I'd like to find out the Marauders were in > Slytherin, but that's just me :)! Maybe I am just over skeptical, but as far as I can tell, no one's ever TOLD Harry that his Dad was Gryffindor, he's always just assumed so - probably based on the fact that the Weasley's are all Gryffindors and the Malfoys are, as far as we've seen, Slytherins. And then we have Sirius Black and his family - I don't believe it was stated, but I would be willing to hazard a guess about what house most of THEM belonged to! It just makes me wonder, especially in light of the revelations about James' teenage attitudes along with his proclivity toward hexing people who annoyed him. (That reminds me, would Bertha Jorkins have been in his age group?) From what I've seen, I think that James and his fellow Marauders might well have fit just fine in Slytherin. I've always thought it a little odd that Harry hasn't asked more people more detailed questions about his family history - I know that I would have a whole notebook of questions at the ready just waiting for an opportunity to pounce someone with them. One more bit of canon that lends me to think there is some merit to questioning overall assumptions about the Marauders' House is Hagrid's assertion in SS that (aproximate, don't have the book handy) - there's been no wizard what's gone bad that wasn't in Slytherin. Now, we know that Characters have been know to make incorrect statement; but still - what does that say about Sirius? At the time he was in Azkaban and they thought that he was right up there with Voldemort. Debbie R. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:38:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:38:06 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > Carol wrote: > > > Debbie, I know that the Lexicon states that she began teaching in > > December 1956, but do we have that in the books themselves? I > thought > > she told Umbridge in OoP that she had been teaching for thirty(?) > > years, but I don't think that means thirty(?) years *exactly*, any > > more than Snape's fourteen years means that he's been teaching > > fourteen years to the day. I don't see any reason to think that > either > > of them began teaching at any time other than the normal beginning > of > > the term (September 1). > > KathyK, with her book in hand responds: > > McGonagall marks December as the month she began. Have a look. > > From OoP Chapter 15, "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" (US ed. p. 321): > > //"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge > asked. > > "Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall > brusquely, snapping her bag shut.// > > KathyK Thanks for looking that up. Hm. I wonder what it means. Could it be that Dippet died at that point and Dumbledore was promoted to Headmaster so Hogwarts needed a new Transfiguration teacher? That's the only explanation that I can think of for hiring her in December rather than September. (BTW, I knew thirty wasn't right, but couldn't remember the exact number of years.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:42:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:42:44 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! was: Protection for EVERYONE at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > Carol: > > Debbie, I know that the Lexicon states that she began teaching in > > December 1956, but do we have that in the books themselves? I > thought > > she told Umbridge in OoP that she had been teaching for thirty(?) > > years, but I don't think that means thirty(?) years *exactly*, any > > more than Snape's fourteen years means that he's been teaching > > fourteen years to the day. > > geoff: > > Yes, we do have that information. > > "'How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?' Professor Umbridge > asked. > 'Thirty-nine years this December,' said Professor McGonagall > brusquely, snapping her bag shut. > Professor Umbridge made a note." > > (OOTP "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" p.287 UK edition) > > This is in the autumn term of 1995, so she definitely began in > December 1956. Thanks, Geoff. Also thanks for the "mimble wimble" quote. (I couldn't indulge in a forbidden two-word post or I'd have thanked you then.) At least with this information we can say definitively that she was never Tom Riddle's teacher (or Hagrid's), but she would definitely have taught Lucius Malfoy, Snape, and MWPP. Carol From erinellii at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 18:58:07 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:58:07 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89983 > Carol: > I can't check this now because I'm rushed for time, but I think that > McGonagall is 70, LV is 65, and Hagrid is 62 in GoF. I'm thinking of > JKR's interviews plus the fifty-year gap between the first and second openings of the Chamber of Secrets. (I'm taking fifty years as an exact figure based on Hermione's reaction in CoS.) Maybe someone who knows the book and interviews inside out can provide links and page numbers. Erin: Tom Riddle opened the chamber in his fifth year at Hogwarts, so he would have been 15 then. Add 50 years, and he would have been 65 in CoS. He would then have been 67 in GoF, when McGonagall is 70. Hmmm, so I guess that is three years and not two like I thought. Still doable, I think. A three-year age difference wouldn't seem like much when you plan to live for 150... or in Tom's case, forever... Erin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 19:10:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:10:09 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89984 Debbie R.: It just makes me wonder, especially in > light of the revelations about James' teenage attitudes along with > his proclivity toward hexing people who annoyed him. (That reminds > me, would Bertha Jorkins have been in his age group?) From what > I've seen, I think that James and his fellow Marauders might well > have fit just fine in Slytherin. Carol: I'm pretty sure that Sirius tells HRH (in the cave scene in GoF where they bring him chicken legs on a Hogsmeade weekend) that he knew Bertha at school and that she was a few years older than he was. (He calls her an "idiot," IIRC.) Debbie R.: > One more bit of canon that lends me to think there is some merit to > questioning overall assumptions about the Marauders' House is > Hagrid's assertion in SS that (aproximate, don't have the book > handy) - there's been no wizard what's gone bad that wasn't in > Slytherin. Now, we know that Characters have been know to make > incorrect statement; but still - what does that say about Sirius? At > the time he was in Azkaban and they thought that he was right up > there with Voldemort. Carol: Isn't Hagrid's statement more or less modified by characters in later books to indicate that *most* of the wizards who joined LV were in Slytherin? I wonder, based on Hagrid's outburst in the tavern scene in PoA ("I comforted the murderin' traitor!") whether he has quite processed the connection between "young Sirius Black" who lent or gave him the motorcycle, depending on which version of the story we consider definitive, and the prisoner who at the time Hagrid makes the statement in SS in languishing in Azkaban. I have a feeling that Hagrid doesn't really sit down and think things out. ("Oh, yeah. Sirius Black must have been a DE, mustn't he? So there was one from Gryffindor.") Of course, he didn't know that the traitor was really Peter Pettigrew, who must have been a Gryffindor if James was. I can't seem them acting as a foursome without sharing a House, and since they're all boys in the same year, that would also mean that they shared a dormitory. If it had been McGonagall or Dumbledore who made that initial remark, I would trust it, but Hagrid is not given to precision. There's also the apparent fact that both James and Sirius hate the Dark Arts (associated with Slytherin) and are chiefly characterized by a kind of reckless courage, a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin trait. So in the absence of other evidence, I'm inclined to trust that image of James as a Gryffindor quidditch player. It's the closest thing we have to solid evidence at the moment. (There's also Lupin's support of Gryffindor in quidditch, somewhere in PoA.) Carol From belijako at online.no Fri Jan 30 19:09:02 2004 From: belijako at online.no (Berit Jakobsen) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:09:02 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89985 June wrote: Voldemort thinks Snape is genuinely playing for the Death Eaters. Because if he thought otherwise, he would have offed Snape by now. So if Snape is genuinely playing for the Phoenix side, he's successfully conned Voldemort - for now. Berit replies: Well, the thing is that there's quite strong evidence in canon for Voldemort knowing Snape is a traitor. His statement at the end of GoF: "One, who I believe has left me for ever ... he will be killed of course" (p.565 UK Ed) seems to apply to Snape. Also it's significant that Snape wasn't let in on Voldie and Quirrel's little plan of stealing the Philosopher's stone. Why didn't Voldie trust him and let him in on the secret? Compare this to Impostor!Moody's little speech in the chapter "The egg and the eye" in GoF, and there is no way Snape can act as a double agent: "'Oh, if there's one thing I hate,' he muttered, *more to himself* than Harry, and his magical eye was fixed on the bottom left-hand corner of the map, 'it's a Death Eater who walked free.'" (p. 414) Now, this statement becomes significant when we go a few pages back and discovers exactly what's in the left-hand corner of the map: "Peeves was not the only thing that was moving. A single dot was flitting around in a room in the bottom left-hand corner - Snape's office." (p. 405) So clearly, Crouch Jr is talking about Snape as the DE that walked free. Harry recognised this immediately: "Harry stared at him. Could Moody possibly mean what Harry thought he meant?" (p.414) Harry noticed which part of the map Moody was staring at. There is no way Crouch Jr could have known that Snape is no longer loyal to his old master without Voldemort himself also knowing. The big mystery is why Snape is still alive, why Voldemort hasn't finished him off yet... And how Snape is able to get information from the DE's... I have a hard time imagining Voldie not mentioning Snape's betrayal to Lucius, it would be really stupid not to do so. So, when Snape's still alive, its must be because the DE's for some unknown reason are playing along. For now. Berit http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 19:25:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:25:15 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > > > Carol: > > I can't check this now because I'm rushed for time, but I think that > > McGonagall is 70, LV is 65, and Hagrid is 62 in GoF. I'm thinking of > > JKR's interviews plus the fifty-year gap between the first and > second openings of the Chamber of Secrets. (I'm taking fifty years as > an exact figure based on Hermione's reaction in CoS.) Maybe someone > who knows the book and interviews inside out can provide links and > page numbers. > > Erin: > > Tom Riddle opened the chamber in his fifth year at Hogwarts, so he > would have been 15 then. Add 50 years, and he would have been 65 in > CoS. He would then have been 67 in GoF, when McGonagall is 70. > Hmmm, so I guess that is three years and not two like I thought. > Still doable, I think. A three-year age difference wouldn't seem > like much when you plan to live for 150... or in Tom's case, > forever... > > Erin Carol: But a fourteen-year-old boy seems like a child to a seventeen-year-old girl (though not necessarily the other way around). Look at the relative emotional maturity of Hermione and Harry/Ron in GoF. Yes, Krum is interested in Hermione (more than she is in him), but he's eighteen. Ron doesn't have a clue about the source of his own jealousy and Harry is still fumbling for words when he speaks to Cho. (Reminds me of a ten-year-old boy I know who thinks that the sign of being "in love" is having a stomachache.) Fleur, presumably seventeen, refers to Harry as "a little boy." I think that would have been McGonagall's attitude toward Tom Riddle in her last year at Hogwarts, if there is in fact a three-year difference. Add to that that the "little boy" is in Slytherin and I can't see her being interested in him at all. Certainly she could not have married him at that point. He was not of age. Then there are the events of the next three years, during which McGonagall is absent and Tom is busy creating a diary, getting Hagrid expelled, and committing four murders. He comes back to Hogwarts as a supposedly model Head Boy, but McGonagall by our time frame doesn't see him in that role. And then he disappears on his adventures in transfiguration and the Dark Arts. IMO, there's no room in the story for a marriage to McGonagall, and nothing in Tom's character that would suggest a romantic interest in her or anyone else. Carol, who is more curious about whether Tom Riddle was a secret disciple of Grindelwald during his years at Hogwarts From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Jan 30 19:29:41 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:29:41 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thetruthisoutthere_13" wrote: > > If Voldemort is in fact possessed by some evil spirit and not acting > under his free will, then Rowling's villian is acting contrary to > her main points in the book of making good choices and doing what is > right, not easy. Unless, of course, Voldemort chose to be possessed > by true evil, and that chose would have to be a conscious choice and > not blind seduction. > Not quite what I'm suggesting. What we call Voldemort is not just Tom Riddle gone bad, IMO. I think that Voldemort is the evil spirit that possessed Tom Riddle. DD suspects that Tom is in there somewhere and is appealing to Tom to try and break free. That allows Tom the choice you'd like to see; submit to evil or fight against it. Kneasy From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 30 20:11:31 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:11:31 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > There's also > the apparent fact that both James and Sirius hate the Dark Arts > (associated with Slytherin) and are chiefly characterized by a kind of > reckless courage, a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin trait. So in > the absence of other evidence, I'm inclined to trust that image of > James as a Gryffindor quidditch player. It's the closest thing we have > to solid evidence at the moment. (There's also Lupin's support of > Gryffindor in quidditch, somewhere in PoA.) Geoff: I spotted a little piece of canon just now which caught my attention while looking for something else which seemed relevant to this discussion. "Professor McGonagall peered sternly over her glasses at Harry. 'I want to hear you're training hard, Potter, or I may change my mind about punishing you.' Then she suddenly smiled. 'Your father would have been proud,' she said. 'He was an excellent Quidditch player himself.'" (PS "The Midnight Duel" p.113 UK edition) The fact that she remembers James as a good player suggests that he was in her house because she probably wouldn't necesarily recall him if he had been in a different house. There's also a suggestion that she knew him and Lily sufficiently well to use their first names.... "'What they're saying.' she pressed on, 'is that last night Voldemort turned up in Godric's Hollow. He went to find the Potters. The rumour is that lily and James Potter are - are - that they're dead.' Dumbledore bowed his head. Professor McGonagall gasped. 'Lily and James.... I can't believe it... I didn't want to believe it... Oh Albus.'" (PS "The Boy who lived" p.14 UK edition) McGonagall is rather old-fashioned and tends to use the pupil's surname or first name plus surname. It is not very often that she uses merely first names - even on ex-pupils. Perhaps this indicates a closeness when they were seniors in her house? It's just a speculative thought. From lfreeman at mbc.edu Fri Jan 30 18:43:01 2004 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:43:01 -0500 Subject: McGonagall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89989 //"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge asked. "Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut.// Hmmm... wouldn't a teacher normally begin in September? Sounds like McGonagall was a mid-year replacement for someone. This suggests that something unfortunate happened to the previous Transfiguration teacher mid-year. Or perhaps the headmaster; since Dumbledore was teaching Transfiguration 50 years ago, he could have been in that position then moved to the Headmaster post when it was vacated. McGonagall would have then been hired to replace him. Louise From lizvega2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 20:40:32 2004 From: lizvega2 at yahoo.com (lizvega2) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:32 -0000 Subject: Tom, ________, and Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89990 Is it possible, like Maline at Mugglenet's North Tower suggests, that Tom and Harry will both survive, but that either the 'one' or the 'dark lord' will die? In PS, when Fred and George, or is it Ron?, asks him if he's really Harry Potter, and Harry replies, "Oh, him". A small statement, but isn't there an infinite difference between Harry, and the 'Boy who lived?' Just like when Dumbledore refers to LV as 'Tom' in the MOM? I think that statement is significant. It implies that perhaps, beneath everything else he is still Tom Riddle? LizVega From dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu Fri Jan 30 20:55:09 2004 From: dequardo at waisman.wisc.edu (Arya) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:55:09 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89991 "justcarol67" wrote: There's also Lupin's support of Gryffindor in quidditch, somewhere in PoA. --------- I looked it up and in PoA, Ch 12, Lupin says: <<"Well -- let's drink to a Gryffindor victory against Ravenclaw! Not that I'm supposed to take sides, as a teacher... " he added hastily.>> I kind of think this may be the strongest indicator of the Marauders' House. Because of the Remus was chosen Prefect to keep us in line comment, I think there's little case for them being split across Houses. Lupin shows favortism here to Gryffindor. I guess, to play my own devil's advocate, he could merely trying to support Harry's house, but that's not the feeling I get. I also just thought of this- -Sirius knew that the Fat Lady painting led to G-tower. Arya (who thinks it's just our own paranoia that even allows to think MWPP were in any House other than Gryffindor) From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 20:55:11 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:55:11 -0000 Subject: The Scar. Was: Choices - or not (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89992 Hitomi: Hey guys! I'm answering quite a few posts in here, and this is for Carol, who wanted me to go back and read the thread, which I did. Anyway, just bear with me on the quoting. Whizbang wrote: I must be missing something. How does Harry's being a parselmouth or any skill aquired when Voldemort marked him an equal, suggest that Lily did a protective charm? The prophesy states that the one had the power as he approached, not that he aquired it later or as the result of someone else's action. The power to vanquish the DL is in Harry. It always has been. Carol wrote: I wasn't talking about the charm here. I was talking about the progressive revelations regarding the scar that convinced me that Harry's survival had nothing to do with powers within himself. Those powers were acquired from the AK (but the fact that the curse rebounded could relate to the charm). Let me state again that we first learn that Harry alone survived the curse. Then we learn that he acquired powers from Voldemort. Then we learn that his survival had something to do with his mother's love and/or her sacrifice ("old magic," Voldemort calls it). JKR is not telling us everything at once. She's adding layer by layer of new information. I think we can discard any thought that an inborn power within Harry enabled him as a baby of fifteen months to throw off a curse that had killed every other wizard it was used on. Also, where does the prophecy state that "the one had the power when he approached"? If you mean "the one who would destroy Voldemort already had that power when Voldemort marked him as his equal," I think you're mistaken. It would help if you'd quote the specific phrase you're referring to, but please remember that prophecies are by nature ambiguous and this one is no exception, so we probably won't agree on the interpretation in any case. Whizbang wrote: I'm baffled again. Why would the opening phrase of the prophecy be, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches," if he didn't have the power? Wouldn't it have said something like, "The one who will have the power to vanquish the dark lord approaches"? And if Neville was also a possibility, it would have to be different again. "Between those approaching the dark lord will choose and mark one who will then have the power to vanquish him." I don't know. The first phrase of the prophesy seems kind of cut and dried. Hitomi: Both of you have points, though Whizbang, you're interpreting the prophecy only literally, not theoretically. I didn't agree with Mandy that Lily gave Harry the scar, that doesn't make any sense, in my opinion, because that scar connects Harry to LV in obvious ways. But Lily COULD have placed a charm on Harry, we are not entirely sure what saved him that Halloween, DD's answer always struck me as more of a theory. Lily's love did save Harry, but the prophecy probably did too, along with, perhaps, a charm. Again, I'm with Carol, in that we have not been told everything. This is JKR we're talking about. She loves not telling us everything. There could be things about the scar, about that night, that we don't know. We don't know what Harry has that LV doesn't, not exactly. We know it's not power, because Harry isn't anywhere near being as powerful or advanced as DD or LV, which is to be expected, he's only sixteen (now). The prophecy could apply only to whoever LV chose, or it could apply only if LV chose the right one. Again, we don't know. We don't know if LV had attacked Neville first, whether Neville would have died, or would have been *the One* instead of Harry. Yes, the prophecy begins, "The One with the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches..." but that's incredibly open- ended. It could mean that "the One" will only exist after the identifying factors are present, or that you will only be able to identify him once the identifying factors are present. We don't know if it could have been Neville, not really. We do know it's Harry now, if the prophecy is to be believed (I don't agree with the theories of Neville being "the One," either; doesn't make nearly as much sense), but JKR didn't throw in that allusion to Neville without a reason. It would be most unlike her if she did. Maybe Harry was always *the One*, but we don't have conclusive evidence, not at the moment. But Carol's thought process is far more sensical, in that I doubt Harry did anything to stop LV at the age of one. Which goes back to the theory of perhaps there was a charm, or maybe it was just the prophecy taking effect. Prophecies are meant to be read without assumption; they are the kind of things you don't truly understand until after they're are fulfilled. And Trelawney's prophecy, in true form, leaves us without any definite answer. I, too, remember the incidents in Book 5, when Vernon grabbed Harry, and something made Vernon let go, and when the Dementors attacked Harry and Dudley, and Harry's wand lit up while he wasn't holding it. I think those events mean something, and I also think Harry has something (powers, emotion, ability, whatever) that we don't know of yet that somehow enables him to have power "the Dark Lord knows not" (alluding to Lily's eyes, his unique talent in DADA, all the allusions to snake-like behavior - especially in Book 5, his ability to throw off the Imperius Curse, his abrupt talent in magic when in need, etc.) We all know that if Harry is "the One," as we are led to believe, and as I believe, then there has to be something about him, as of yet, unmentioned. But we also know, that ANY wizard can use non-focused magic when emotionally provoked. Hence, how wizards and witches are discovered before the age of eleven. We also don't know everything that happened Oct. 31, 1981. Could LV's back-fired AK Curse have blown up the house? Possibly, though unlikely. Until we are given conclusive evidence, we are open to making up theories, and bringing forth evidence to prove and dispute such theories. In that, Carol is more than right. Though again, I am more inclined to agree with Whizbang's theories than I am Mandy's. It's a matter of opinion and thought-process. Though, again, Carol's theories are far more sensical. Whizbang wrote: Somehow, the fact that Lily's wand was good for charms and the identification of the rune represented in the scar seem very thin canon to base this on. Knowing what we do about Harry, and Dumbledore's statement that he put the protective charm on Harry seem to contradict it. Carol wrote: Again, I think you're confusing two different charms, the one that Mandy and I think Lily may have used to protect Harry from the AK and the one we all know Dumbledore used to provide him protection while he stayed with the Dursleys. I know it's confusing, but the known existence of one charm doesn't preclude the possible existence of the other. And Lily's skill with charms as revealed by her wand *is* an important hint that we shouldn't ignore. It hints at what's to come just as James's wand hinted at his skill as an animagus. The rune also will prove important. I'm only stating a possible connection, not a proven fact--putting two and two together like Snape, if you like. I may be right or I may be wrong, but at least it seems like an intriguing possibility. Surely you can at least concede that the hints are there, whatever they may mean. Hitomi: I'm going to agree with Whizbang in that the rune is a TINY piece of evidence, but Carol is more than right that Lily's talent in Charms is important, and that the existence of one Charm (DD's), does not disprove that there may have been another one. DD's Charm protects Harry after LV attacked him at the age of one; the theory is that Lily's Charm protected Harry THAT night. It's just a theory, though one that has quite a bit of very logical evidence. Though, no, it cannot be proved. Just like all those Gryffindor's heir theories, with Harry being the heir of Godric. Lots of sensical evidence, though what with the prophecy in Book 5, we're not all clamoring to believe that theory anymore. Until the next two books come out, for all we know, Lily might have placed a Charm upon Harry. It would make sense, if she had a talent in the field, and knew LV was after them, wouldn't she try to protect her son in some sort of physical way, besides by just shielding him with her body, as we assume she did? Carol wrote: Also, you might consider that we don't know what powers Harry had as a baby before LV "marked" him. Hitomi: My point exactly. Whizbang wrote: Harry had the power to vanquish the dark lord as he approached, before he was born. The prophesy should be taken into consideration in this theory. Carol wrote: Forgive me, but you're taking your own theory for granted here. We *don't* know that Harry "had the power to vanquish the Dark Lord as he approached." I think you're confusing what happened at Godric's Hollow with what the Prophecy (ambiguously) states will happen in the final confrontation. I'm not ignoring the Prophecy, but clearly we're interpreting it differently. Hitomi: Again, it's a prophecy. It's meant to be ambiguous, non-conclusive, and open to interpretation. There are different ways in which to read it, as I said, literally or theoretically. Do I think Harry is "the One?" Yes, because, as far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense, and he is the main character. Does that mean I could be wrong? Yes, because we won't know until the next two books come out. As Carol has said, we should be open to different theories, until, of course, we know differently. I suggest everyone go read these essays by Maline on MuggleNet. They are eloquent and concise, and give good insight into the prophecy argument and others: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/ Whizbang wrote: According to Dumbledore, the powers transfered by Voldemort are what have given Harry the "power, and a future" to escape the DL four times. None of the transferred powers will vanquish the DL. Even Dumbledore can't do that. This is a power or a quantity of power somehow exclusive to Harry. He was born with it. Hitomi: We don't know this for sure. Carol wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here. In any case, a power within Harry that will ultimately enable him to defeat LV is not necessarily a power he was born with. And again, his ability to defeat LV in the future is not the same as his "ability" to survive the AK in the first place. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that his survival was the result of anything the infant Harry said, did, or willed. His survival is the result of something his mother did--her love, her self-sacrifice, or a charm she put on him to protect him--we don't know yet. Hitomi: Again, we don't know this for sure. Carol wrote: You seem to be certain of your view, but it is really only an interpretation just as mine is. We are looking at the same passages and interpreting them differently. We are both presenting theories. There are no absolutes here, and evidence is only evidence, not proof. Hitomi: Yes, yup, definitely, exactly, and any other word of agreement. Whizbang wrote: There seems to be far more in canon to support the AK failing to kill Harry, marking him with a lightning bolt scar, transferring Voldemort's powers and then rebounding to tear Voldemort painfully from his body, leaving him less than the meanest ghost. Carol wrote: We both agree on this point. Where we disagree is that you think the power to deflect the AK was within Harry himself, something he was born with, whereas I think he was protected by Lily, at the very least by her love and self-sacrifice, but possibly by a protective charm as well (which is where the other evidence--her wand and the Eihwaz rune, comes in). Hitomi: And, with what we know, either theory is quite valid. Which do I agree with? Whizbang's, but that's only because I prefer that theory. I remain open to Carol's, however. Whizbang wrote: Of course, the house was also destroyed. And ten years later, Aunt Petunia wouldn't leave Harry home alone because she was afraid she would come home and find the house leveled. Harry protests that he won't blow up the house, but she is unimpressed. (Just what does she know?) Hitomi: Alright, this is WAY taking your theory for granted. And no offense, but Petunia is the absolute WORST example of knowledge about magic. We don't know what happened that night, as I've reiterated time and again. And Harry, more than likely, was not able to blow up a house on his own (with magic). I don't even know if he could do that now. Whizbang wrote: How was the house in Godric's Hollow destroyed? I think Harry attacked Voldemort at the same time that the AK was cast and either Harry's alone, or the combination of spells brought the house down as well as all else that occured. "Either must die at the hand of the other." But when they attacked each other simultaneously in the graveyard, they both survived. Has that happened before? Carol wrote: A fifteen-month-old baby who couldn't even talk yet beyond "Mama" and "bye bye" picked up a wand and cast a spell? I have no idea why the house was destroyed, but I'm willing to bet fifty galleons in leprechaun gold that it wasn't that. Again, you seem to be confusing the Prophecy, which concerns the ultimate defeat of Voldemort by the one he marked as his equal with the events at Godric's Hollow. Hitomi: I'm with Carol, that theory just doesn't make sense. Knowing what we know, I've always assumed the AK Curse back-firing was what probably blew up the house, which of course, would be no doing of Harry's (not directly, at any rate). But something else could have happened, something else could have occured that we don't know of. Perhaps James tried dueling LV before his death, and that leveled part of the house. It might not have anything to do with Harry; three people were attacked that night, not just the baby. We may know eventually, but I can state, with almost certainty, that Harry did not PRODUCE a spell that night. He was ONE for heaven's sake. Carol wrote: P.S. What I really want is for SOMEBODY to look at this argument and back me up on a point or two, or help me unconfuse Whizbang, who doesn't seem to understand my detailed explanations of my arguments. Hitomi: I hope I've helped to at least clear up a few things. Anyway, I hope this rather long post wasn't a waste to either you, Carol, or Whizbang ;) Ja ne! ~ Hitomi From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 21:41:07 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:41:07 -0000 Subject: Tom, ________, and Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizvega2" wrote: > Is it possible, like Maline at Mugglenet's North Tower suggests, > that Tom and Harry will both survive, but that either the 'one' or > the 'dark lord' will die? > > In PS, when Fred and George, or is it Ron?, asks him if he's really > Harry Potter, and Harry replies, "Oh, him". A small statement, but > isn't there an infinite difference between Harry, and the 'Boy who > lived?' > > Just like when Dumbledore refers to LV as 'Tom' in the MOM? I think > that statement is significant. It implies that perhaps, beneath > everything else he is still Tom Riddle? > > LizVega What, you mean like Darth Vader dying at the end of "Return of the Jedi" and Anakin Skywalker killing the emperor to save Luke? That *could* happen, but I just don't see it. Perhaps Tom Riddle, the wounded, mistreated orphan boy with a hidden heart of gold will resurface in LV and the evil side of LV will be destroyed, but from what we've seen of 16 year old Tom, there isn't much good to go back to, is there? As for the "Oh, him" statement in SS, that, IMHO, was definately a way to seperate Harry from his "famous Harry Potter" side, but I don't think that seperates Harry from his "boy-who- lived" side, simply because Harry Potter IS the boy who lived. Even if he hadn't become famous for it, he was still the BWL, so he probably cannot be seperated from his destiny. Meri - who would have totally fallen in love with young Tom Riddle, until of course, he turned into a homicidal maniac From erinellii at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 21:48:12 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:48:12 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89994 Erin: Okay, move that back to two years. I just read this: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timeline.html#Important which talks about the Lexicon timeline versus the "official" timeline approved by Rowling on the CoS dvd, and down at the end of the page it states that the official timeline stipulates that the opening of the Chamber of Secrets actually takes place 51 years before the book CoS. So that makes Riddle 68 to McGonagall's 70 at the end of GoF. Carol: > But a fourteen-year-old boy seems like a child to a seventeen-year- old girl (though not necessarily the other way around). Look at the > relative emotional maturity of Hermione and Harry/Ron in GoF. Yes, > Krum is interested in Hermione (more than she is in him), but he's > eighteen. Ron doesn't have a clue about the source of his own jealousy and Harry is still fumbling for words when he speaks to Cho. (Reminds me of a ten-year-old boy I know who thinks that the sign of being "in love" is having a stomachache.) Fleur, presumably seventeen, refers to Harry as "a little boy." I think that would have been McGonagall's attitude toward Tom Riddle in her last year at Hogwarts, if there is in fact a three-year difference. Erin: Not everyone develops at the same rate, it's true. But Rowling has shown that she is not adverse to relationships between students of different years. Krum/Hermione, Harry/Cho, Ginny/Dean, Ginny/Neville. Even Bill/Fleur is a pretty big gap, though they're not students anymore. Sure, Ron gets shot down, but there's no proof it's because of age; Fleur appears to be scouting for handsome quidditch captains/former head boys. All-in-all, Rowling's record seems to be more in favor of the age gap than against it. As for the relative emotional maturity of Hermione, Ron, and Harry, it seems to me that in this instance Riddle could easily be likened to Hermione. He is described by Dumbledore as brilliant, after all. Hermione is brilliant, and considerably more emotionally mature than even the other girls in her grade and above (Lavender, Parvarti, Cho). Neither Harry or Ron can exactly be described as brilliant. I reject the case of the ten-year-old. Even ten-year-old *girls* are likely to think the opposite sex has cooties. There's just too big a developmental gap to go comparing ten-year-olds and teenagers. One reason Harry and Ron are so flustered is that they actually DO have these all these feelings. Riddle as seducer/player wouldn't have that problem. He could be smooth, secure in his role of perfect boyfriend. It's easy to say all the right things when there are no messy feelings involved. Carol: Add to that that the "little boy" is in Slytherin and I can't see her being interested in him at all. Certainly she could not have married him at that point. He was not of age. Erin: Maybe there was some Slytherin prejudice at that point, but I can't help wondering if maybe it wasn't as strong as it is in Harry's time, after many of the DEs are known to have come from Slytherin. I can't help wondering if perhaps Tom Riddle himself caused most of the prejudice that we see today. If so, then it wouldn't have been present as strongly when he was at school, and would not have been a barrier to a relationship with Minerva. And the theory is not that he married her while he was at school, it is that he married her after he turned 17/got out of school. --Erin From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 30 22:43:30 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:43:30 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What was Mrs. Weasley Thinking? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <401B78C2.32652.452DA0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 89995 On 30 Jan 2004 at 17:59, Robert Jones wrote: > In OOTP ch. 9 (p. 63 US ed.), when Mrs. Weasley sees that Ron is > made Prefect she says "That's everyone in the family!" to which Fred > replies "What are George and I, next door neighbors? > But maybe Mrs. Weasley was caught up in the excitement of the moment > and let something slip? Maybe Fred and George are not really her > children? I don't particularly believe this - and I don't know it's been suggested before. But this passage did get me thinking, and I wonder what people think of this idea. Fred and George are Secret Prefects (-8 OK - let me make this absolutely clear to start with, because I often post explanations about how prefect systems really tend to work when threads arise here - I know of no real world system where you would have secret prefects. I'm not basing this idea on *any* real world situation. But consider... What is the function of a prefect at Hogwarts? There's some obvious stuff relating to helping to enforce discipline in their houses, perhaps acting as an advisor to younger students - we see prefects doing this in the series. But there's more to it than just this. Prefects are also tasked with protecting their fellow students: In the Philosopher's Stone: ""Prefects," he rumbled, "lead your Houses back to the dormitories immediately!" Percy was in his element. "Follow me! Stick together, first years! No need to fear the troll if you follow my orders! Stay close behind me, now. Make way, first years coming through! Excuse me, I'm a prefect!"" In Chamber of Secrets: "The journey through the dark and deserted castle corridors wasn't enjoyable. Harry, who had wandered the castle at night several times before, had never seen it so crowded after sunset. Teach ers, prefects, and ghosts were marching the corridors in pairs, staring around for any unusual activity." In Prisoner of Azkaban: "It is not in the nature of a dementor to understand pleading or excuses. I therefore warn each and every one of you to give them no reason to harm you. I look to the prefects, and our new Head Boy and Girl, to make sure that no student runs afoul of the dementors," he said." ""The teachers and I need to conduct a thorough search of the castle," Professor Dumbledore told them as Professors McGonagall and Flitwick closed all doors into the hall. "I'm afraid that, for your own safety, you will have to spend the night here. I want the prefects to stand guard over the entrances to the hall and I am leaving the Head Boy and Girl in charge. Any disturbance should be reported to me immediately," he added to Percy, who was looking immensely proud and important. "Send word with one of the ghosts."" Just a few examples, of how Dumbledore has absolutely no hesitation in putting the prefects in charge of the safety of their fellow students. This is an important part of their function. In "Order of the Phoenix", we see for the first time, a very different Hogwarts in many ways. We see a situation where Voldemort has risen again, and we expect that this will have implications in the school - and, of course, it turns out that it does. Dumbledore, I think, has insight into what is likely to happen - he realises that situations may arise where the school will come under internal threats, and where the traditional structures of the school - such as the Prefect system - will be subverted to an extent - and again, this happens. With Dumbledore's insight I can see him wanting to make preparations for this. Is it plausible that one of these preparations was to appoint Fred and George Weasley as prefects - secretly, unbeknownst to most people? It'd be an interesting choice... Fred and George don't seem like Prefect material on the surface - nobody would suspect them of having that type of power. But, I think, their hearts are in the right place, personally. I think when push comes to shove, they are the types who will do what is necessary. Yes, they'll break rules if they think they need to - and in the situation that develops at Hogwarts, breaking rules becomes a matter of opposing a corrupt and more or less evil regime - but when it counts they will do the right thing about the important things. Why make them secret prefects? Maybe because it gives them some sort of special power or authority. I can't really justify that at the moment - although I do wonder if Fred's final order leaving the school is some sort of clue: "'STOP THEM!' shrieked Umbridge, but it was too late. As the Inquisitorial Squad closed in, Fred and George kicked off from the floor, shooting fifteen feet into the air, the iron peg swinging dangerously below. Fred looked across the hall at the poltergeist bobbing on his level above the crowd. 'Give her hell from us, Peeves.' And Peeves who Harry had never seen take an order from a student before, swept his belled hat from his head and sprang to a salute as Fred and George wheeled about to tumutuous applause from the students below and sped out of the open front doors into the glorious sunset." Consider back in The Philosopher's Stone: "'"You want to watch out for Peeves,' said Percy, as they set off again. 'The Bloody Baron's the only one who can control him, he won't even listen to us prefects. Here we are.'" Percy seems to think Peeves should listen to prefects - now, this could just be pompous Percy - but it could also be a sign of something. Of course, Peeves, could just have respected Fred and George as Master Mischief Makers - but maybe not... See, I have a really hard time with the idea of Molly forgetting two of her sons - but if she knows that they have been secretly appointed - and frankly, if I was Fred or George, I would her to know - in her moment of pride about Ron, she may have let something slip. George's next door neighbour comment could just have been a reminder to her that - "Hey, that's secret. Remember." As I say, I'm not sure how much credence I give this... it's just floating around. If anyone else has proposed similar before, I'd love to know message numbers so I can see if they make a better case than I am - or if anyone has any ideas now. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 00:58:29 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (Meghan Chalmers-McDonald) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:58:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hey! Yew! In-Reply-To: <1075485352.15875.78810.m15@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040131005829.44409.qmail@web11509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 89997 Frost: Ok, sorry for the bad pun, but they are my specialty. So all the talk about EIHWAZ made me curiouse. I looked it up. SOme places it looked more like a bit of lightning than others, so... meh... But then you read that it is the symbol for the "Yew tree." I was just reading Voldimort's rebirth sceen when I noticed, this: "They were standing instead in a sark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible beuond a large yew tree to their right." (OoP, US HB, p.636) This seemingly innocent detail is mentioned several times, down to it's leaves, in the telling of Voldimort's rebirth. It made me wonder what Harry's wand was. I checked. Holly. Ok, not impressive, but then you go on and read on page 85, OoP, US softback: "It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for thie wand when its brother-- why, its brother gave you that scar... Yes, thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Cuirious indeed how these things happen." I am as of yet, uncertain what these things could mean. The first thing that come to mind is that this is confirmation that IF the symbol on Harry's head is eiwhaz, then it is very likely that the mark is from the wand that Voldemort held, and not from Lily. In addition, I think we should keep an eye out for eiwhaz and yew, since they seem to hold an importance, and possibly beyond the scar. Any ideas? Frost --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 01:00:34 2004 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:00:34 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > June wrote: > Voldemort thinks Snape is genuinely playing for the Death Eaters. > Because if he thought otherwise, he would have offed Snape by now. > So if Snape is genuinely playing for the Phoenix side, he's > successfully conned Voldemort - for now. > > Berit replies: > > Well, the thing is that there's quite strong evidence in canon for > Voldemort knowing Snape is a traitor. His statement at the end of > GoF: "One, who I believe has left me for ever ... he will be killed > of course" (p.565 UK Ed) seems to apply to Snape. bboy_mn: I will point out again that this statement by Voldemort contains an element of uncertainty. He doesn't say, 'Snape has left me forever ...he will be killed'; he says, slightly paraphrase, 'I THINK Snape has left me forever ...he will be killed'. While I can't prove it as an absolute fact, it seems a reasonable assumption given everything else that in known from the 5 available books. > Berit continues: > > Also it's significant that Snape wasn't let in on Voldie and > Quirrel's little plan of stealing the Philosopher's stone. ... bboy_mn: Voldemort has been lost in the woods for over a decade, he is not sure who he can trust, so it seems very reasonable that he would only let the fewest number of people possible know about his return until he had sufficient power to control them. When you are an evil brutal dictator who is as merciless to his friends as he is to his enemies, you would be unlikely to reveal yourself in a weakened vulnerable state to anyone. Voldemort hadn't seen Snape for a long long time, and had no way of knowing where Snape currently stood. He did however know where Quirrel stood, and he also knew that he had power over and control of Quirrel. It seems very reasonable that Voldemort would not reveal himself to anyone until he had sufficient power to control and motivate his followers. > Berit continues: > > Compare this to Impostor!Moody's little speech in the chapter "The > egg and the eye" in GoF, and there is no way Snape can act as a > double agent: "'Oh, if there's one thing I hate it's a Death Eater > who walked free.'" > > ...edited... > > The big mystery is why Snape is still alive, why Voldemort hasn't > finished him off yet... And how Snape is able to get information > from the DE's... I have a hard time imagining Voldie not mentioning > Snape's betrayal to Lucius, it would be really stupid not to do so. > So, when Snape's still alive, its must be because the DE's for some > unknown reason are playing along. For now. > > Berit bboy_mn: Let's explore the concept of a double agent. A double agent has to appear to each side to be friendly to that side while secretly working for the other side. That makes it Snape's job, as a spy for Voldemort, to appear to be friendly and cooperative with Dumbledore. I further speculate that only the absolute top people in Voldemort's organization, people like Lucius Malfoy, knew that Voldemort had sent Snape to Dumbledore to appear to join the good side so he could secretly spy for Voldemort. That's why Lucius has remaind friends with Snape all these years, because Lucius knows Snape is just doing his job. He must publically and openly appear to support Dumbledore, so that when and if Voldemort returns, Snape can pick up his role as spy. The only way I can find that allows Snape to work closely with Dumbledore while still allowing him to be taken back by Voldemort is if Voldemort sent him to Dumbledore in the first place. Those Death Eaters who knew what Snape was up to would have told all other DE's to lay off Snape. I'm sure Lucius was high enough in Voldemort's organization that other DE eaters would not dare question his orders to leave Snape alone, even if they didn't understand why. Barty Crouch, on the other hand, hates all DE's who didn't go to prison, regardless of what Voldemort feels about them. Voldemort seemed to understand Lucius Malfoys motivations is claiming Bewitchment. He understood that by doing so, he was able to protect his fellow DE's and keep them out of prison. If Lucius worked under the Imperius Curse, and he made other people in his organization work under the Imperius Curse, then they were as innocent as he was ...or appeared. Lucius was the one DE's who was able to escape with his own network of DE underlings intact. A strong and functional group ready to go if Voldemort ever came back. I think Voldemort understood this, I think he understood that Malfoy had not some much denounced him, as he has protected his own network of DE's. Also, while rank and file DE's might not understand, the higher inner circle would know that part of being a spy, part of what comes with the territory, is having to periodically betray your own side to remain in the good graces of the people you are spying on. In short, the DE's and Voldemort would have to accept that Snape would occassionally have to betray them, hopefully in small insignificant ways, in order to periodically prove to Dumbledore that Snape was indeed faithful to Dumbledore. These betrayal would be overlook and forgiven as part of the price a spy must pay. Now that, we assume, Snape is truly spying for Dumbledore, Dumbledore has to accept the same thing, he has to understand that there may come a time when Snape will have to betray him in order to appear to be faithful to Voldemort. Both side are hoping that what they gain from their spy will imensely out weigh what they lose. So, the only way I can see to explain Snape's ability to return to serve Voldemort is if it was Voldemort who originally sent Snape to Dumbledore. Nothing else makes sense. Just a thought. bboy_mn From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 01:11:55 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:11:55 -0000 Subject: The SCAR channel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 89999 Several current threads made me think about the scar and its implications. Here is one idea I had, hoping it hadn't been already posted 20 times in the past. Remember the two main facts about the scar: 1. LV transferred some of his powers to baby Harry when he gave him the scar. The main (single?) example of such a power is parcelmouth. The moment I read it in CoS I was expecting for more of these powers to surface in next books, but until now we haven't seen any, unless Harry's exceptional abilities in DADA is an example. 2. The scar also acts as a channel between Harry's and LV's minds. Harry was able to receive LV's emotions and even direct perceptions. When LV learned about it he was able to feed Harry false information through the channel and even possess him, for a short time. Using Ockham's Razor, it is preferable to explain both #1 and #2 by using only #2. According to this idea, the channel passes not only emotions and perceptions, but also abilities and powers. So when Harry is speaking parcel tongue, he is not using an ability that was burned in his own mind at that fateful night when he was 1 year old. Rather, he is (subconsciously, of course) directly accessing LV's mind through the scar channel, in real time, and tapping the parcelmouth ability. Kind of like when I sit in front of my computer, exploring and calling files from the server computer through the intranet, for all practical purposes as if it was my own computer. The full implications of this possibility are too big for me to encompass at this moment, but here are two to start with: First, it means that practically any talent, power and ability that LV has or acquired in many years of studying, Harry can use through the channel as if it was his own, if only he can find out how to access it. This gives the words "mark him as his equal" a practically literal meaning. Of course, LV might also access Harry abilities through the channel, but I don't think he will find much in the mind of a 16 years old wizard, except for that "wonderful and terrible" force that he can't use. Secondly, it means that if Harry will succeed and vanquish the Dark Lord, he will also lose all the powers and abilities that actually come from LV's mind. I think he will still retain his flying talent and quidditch reflexes (these he probably inherited from James) but I suspect he will find himself much less powerful and his DADA abilities considerably reduced. Well, big achievements require sacrifices and all that. Any additional ideas? Neri From helen at odegard.com Sat Jan 31 02:01:47 2004 From: helen at odegard.com (Helen R. Granberry) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:01:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hey! Yew! In-Reply-To: <20040131005829.44409.qmail@web11509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000401c3e79e$30035680$6401a8c0@helenw1> No: HPFGUIDX 90000 Frost: Ok, sorry for the bad pun, but they are my specialty. ? So all the talk about EIHWAZ made me curiouse. I looked it up. SOme places it looked more like a bit of lightning than others, so... meh...? But then you read that it is the symbol for the "Yew tree."? ? I was just reading Voldimort's rebirth sceen when I noticed, this: ? "They were standing instead in a sark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible beuond a large yew tree to their right." (OoP, US HB, p.636) ??? ? This seemingly innocent detail is mentioned several times, down to it's leaves, in the telling of Voldimort's rebirth. ? It made me wonder what Harry's wand was.? I checked. Holly. Ok, not impressive, but then you go on and read on page 85, OoP, US softback: ? "It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for thie wand when its brother-- why, its brother gave you that scar... Yes, thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Cuirious indeed how these things happen." ? I am as of yet, uncertain what these things could mean. The first thing that come to mind is that this is confirmation that IF the symbol on Harry's head is eiwhaz, then it is very likely that the mark is from the wand that Voldemort held, and not from Lily.? In addition, I think we should keep an eye out for eiwhaz and yew, since they seem to hold an importance, and possibly beyond the scar.? ? Any ideas? Frost >From Helen (LizardLaugh): Yew is a symbol for death (hence it being planted in churchyards). I believe holly is a symbol for rebirth, but not quite as sure on that one. From maneelyfh at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 02:14:55 2004 From: maneelyfh at yahoo.com (maneelyfh) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:14:55 -0000 Subject: What was Mrs. Weasley Thinking? In-Reply-To: <401B78C2.32652.452DA0@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 30 Jan 2004 at 17:59, Robert Jones wrote: > > > In OOTP ch. 9 (p. 63 US ed.), when Mrs. Weasley sees that Ron is > > made Prefect she says "That's everyone in the family!" to which Fred > > replies "What are George and I, next door neighbors? > > > But maybe Mrs. Weasley was caught up in the excitement of the moment > > and let something slip? Maybe Fred and George are not really her > > children? > > I don't particularly believe this - and I don't know it's been > suggested before. But this passage did get me thinking, and I > wonder what people think of this idea. > BIG GIANT SNIP> > See, I have a really hard time with the idea of Molly forgetting > two of her sons - but if she knows that they have been secretly > appointed - and frankly, if I was Fred or George, I would her to > know - in her moment of pride about Ron, she may have let something > slip. George's next door neighbour comment could just have been a > reminder to her that - "Hey, that's secret. Remember." > > As I say, I'm not sure how much credence I give this... it's just > floating around. If anyone else has proposed similar before, I'd > love to know message numbers so I can see if they make a better > case than I am - or if anyone has any ideas now. > > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html > (ISTJ) | drednort at a... | ICQ: 6898200 >little snip Not only did she forget the twins but Ginny as well...... This does not bother me so as I have a friend who has 8 siblings. Her mom was pregnant for 10 yrs. My friend told me a funny story of how her mom was in a panic one day because she had lost the youngest. The kids ran around frantically searching for this child only to realize the child had held on her mom's hip the entire time. She was so used to holding a kid on her hip that when she did not see him playing with the others she forgot she was holding him. Raising a large brood can do funny things mothers. Fran From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Jan 31 02:42:18 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:42:18 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What was Mrs. Weasley Thinking? In-Reply-To: References: <401B78C2.32652.452DA0@localhost> Message-ID: <401BB0BA.31730.2BFD70@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 90002 On 31 Jan 2004 at 2:14, maneelyfh wrote: > Not only did she forget the twins but Ginny as well...... This does > not bother me so as I have a friend who has 8 siblings. Her mom was > pregnant for 10 yrs. My friend told me a funny story of how her mom > was in a panic one day because she had lost the youngest. The kids > ran around frantically searching for this child only to realize the > child had held on her mom's hip the entire time. She was so used to > holding a kid on her hip that when she did not see him playing with > the others she forgot she was holding him. Raising a large brood can > do funny things mothers. I don't think she forgets Ginny - Ginny isn't old enough to be a prefect yet - her statement could mean 'so far' or she could be confident for some reason that Ginny will be a prefect. Fred and George, though, are old enough - and they in the room with her. Yes, a mother with a large group of kids can occasionally forget something, sure - but to actually totally forget two of them exist... Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 31 03:01:43 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:01:43 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" wrote: > > Well, the thing is that there's quite strong evidence in canon for > Voldemort knowing Snape is a traitor. His statement at the end of > GoF: "One, who I believe has left me for ever ... he will be killed > of course" (p.565 UK Ed) seems to apply to Snape. My theory on the subject, which I embrace with a fervor akin to the believers in Vampire!Snape and the lone voice calling in the wilderness, is that Voldemort thinks that *Snape* is the coward and that *Karkaroff* has left him forever. The argument hinges on the IMO extremely reasonable assumption that we as readers know more about Snape than Voldemort does. People point out that Snape isn't a coward and has turned spy at great personal risk, and so on. We know that. Voldemort might not. Finding out that Snape is skilled in Occlumency and stands a fairer chance than most in lying to Voldemort clinched the matter even further. So what did Karkaroff do? Here's a fellow who has been burning his whole fleet. --he was caught by Alastor Moody and was in Azkaban together with Sirius, then got released, saying that he'd seen the error of his ways. Put a lot of people in Azkaban instead of himself and isn't popular in there. (GOF, UK paperback, p.291) --he's seen helping the Ministry by betraying Dolohov, Rosier, Travers, Mulciber, Rookwood and Snape (and somehow I have a feeling that there might have been more) "as a sign that he fully and totally renounces Lord Voldemort and is filled with deep remorse" etc. (op cit, p.511) --Fled because he feared Voldemort's vengeance, having betrayed too many faithful Death Eaters to be sure of a welcome back in the fold. (op cit, pp.586, 616) Crouch Jr even says "The Dark Lord has ways of tracking his enemies", and he would have known what Karkaroff did, either because he hadn't been caught when Karkaroff was released or because he found out when he got out, and have reported it to Voldemort. Snape is probably more skilled at covering his tracks than Karkaroff, who has always struck me as more of a fool and who may have thought that he stood a chance of getting out, just like Regulus. Snape, just like Malfoy, Avery et al. was cleared by the Wizengamot (Sirius even says that Snape, to his knowledge, was clever and cunning enough not to get caught (p.461)) and Crouch Jr hates *any* Death Eaters who managed to get away (he rather rants against Malfoy and the others (p. 586)). If Snape told on his fellow Death Eaters, he would be a lot more subtle than doing it in front of the whole of the Wizengamot (Harry didn't see Rita Skeeter until Bagman's trial, so it might even be possible that Dumbledore managed to keep Snape under cover.) So, my theory in short: Karkaroff is dead meat. Snape is received back among Voldemort's supporters. (not that he mightn't die eventually, but it won't be for being "the one who has left forever"). Alshain, who really should go to bed From smaragdina5 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 04:45:28 2004 From: smaragdina5 at yahoo.com (smaragdina5) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:45:28 -0000 Subject: secret garden Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90004 I just went with friends to attend a musical based on The Secret Garden. En route, I updated them on all the HP literary references and clues I could think of that were current and feasible. In the play, a young boy named Colin is sort of kept hopeless and sick by his uncle Neville, who subconsciously doesn't want his nephew to come into his own and upstage him and inherit the estate. Colin becomes strong and confident after his friends help him to spend time in the garden his mother used to enjoy and cultivate. I just had to post that here, after all the threads about Neville, Uncle Algie, st. Mungo's, herbology, and so forth. >:) Betta smaragdina From jrpessin at mail.millikin.edu Sat Jan 31 05:08:24 2004 From: jrpessin at mail.millikin.edu (Jonathan Pessin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:08:24 -0600 Subject: the worst filk ever... or the best filk ever. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90005 with apologies to Billy Joel... the song (and the chorus) came to me out of a typo, and grew like a weed in my mind. Potter Man (to the tune of Piano Man by Billy Joel) It's time for the fans of the Potterverse, Who debate over every small thing, To decide who's the one to give Potter some fun And perhaps end up wearing his ring. We say, "Son, since you're fighting Lord Thingummy, We'll give you a bit of a wait, But the time soon will be when fans all want to see Who you're gonna take out on a date!" La la la, de de da La la, de de da da dum Chorus: Give us a snog, you're the Potter man, Give us a snog tonight! Well, we're all in the mood for "astronomy" Even though it's 2:30 at night! Now Hermione there is a friend of his, Has been since they defeated a troll, And he saw at the ball she's not ugly at all, So perhaps they can go on a roll? But then, Ron might have something to say 'bout that, If his friend and the gal had a fling, Cause we know he'll be asking her out sometime, Once he gives up that whole "Vicky" thing. Oh, la la la, de de da La la, de de da da dum Chorus Give us a snog, you're the Potter man, Give us a snog tonight! Well, we're all in the mood for "astronomy" Even though it's 2:30 at night! Now Luna's a Ravenclaw oddity, Who hears voices when nobody's there, Oh, and sometimes it seems she's the gal of his dreams, So perhaps those two might be a pair? But then sometimes she goes a bit overboard, With her oddness and gaze of surprise, So I don't think that Potter would go for it, And besides, she might like other guys. Oh, la la la, de de da La la, de de da da dum Chorus Give us a snog, you're the Potter man, Give us a snog tonight! Well, we're all in the mood for "astronomy" Even though it's 2:30 at night! So theres lots of nice lasses at Hogwarts, Those we've mentioned, and some we have not, And we safely assume it'll be someones doom To take Potter's hand and tie the knot So whose luck will turn out to be luckiest? We'll find out on some long-waited day, But with ol' JKR guesses don't go that far... Even if Harry won't turn out gay! Oh, la la la, de de da La la, de de da da dum Chorus: Give us a snog, you're the Potter man, Give us a snog tonight! Well, we're all in the mood for "astronomy" Even though its 2:30 at night! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You haven't been getting into the Gaffer's home brew again, have you?" "No... Well, yes, but that's beside the point." -Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, Fellowship of the Rings Extended Edition DVD From irina_l_ at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 11:52:29 2004 From: irina_l_ at hotmail.com (ilubom) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:52:29 -0000 Subject: Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90008 Greetings everyone, I've got another crazy theory I'd like to float. It's a bit lengthy so please bear with me. I was thinking about DD's explanation to Harry about why LV decided to try to kill him as a baby - ie that Trelawney's prophesy was partly overheard by a Deatheater, and the story has some gaping holes in it. DD was there for a basic job interview of ST, he says himself that he did not expect to hear anything interesting that night. So why would anyone bother eavesdropping on the conversation? Also, it is a bit of an unlikely coincidence that the eavesdropper was discovered just when he/she heard enough to encourage LV to attack Harry, but did not hear anything else. And, if the eavesdropper was discovered - why was he/she only ejected from the bar - if it was so important that the prophesy was not heard at all - why not modify their memory? My theory is that Dumbledore, probably with Snape's assistance made sure that LV was aware of the first part of the prophesy and, in effect sent LV after Harry + his parents. I know it sounds crazy, but let me explain. - we know from OoP that *the only* person who had a chance of defeating LV forever would be born at the end of July...etc and would be marked by LV as his equal. That means that LV attacking this person (Harry) was an essential pre-requisite to LV's downfall. If he did not do this, there would not be anyone who would be able to defeat him forever. - we also know that DD was in a tireless battle against LV and, from his statement about not caring about faceless multitudes dying (which I do not think he meant literally) we know that he is capable of sacrificing himself or others for the course. - we know that DD trusts Snape, but do not really know why. Just because Snape became a spy for the other side is not really enough. If he betrayed one side, he could as easily betray the other. So why does DD trust him? - oh, and we also know that Snape started working at Hogwarts around the time of Lilly and James' death - when Umbridge asks him in OoP (in early October) how long he's been working at Hogwarts he says "fourteen years". Ok, knowing all that - what about this scenario: DD hears the prophesy from ST. He realises that, in order to have any chance to be rid of LV, one of the boys who fit the description of the prophesy has to be marked by LV as his equal and to have powers that LV does not know of. He realises of course that LV is unlikely to "mark" either Harry or Neville unless he has a reason to do so. How can he do so? - by making sure that LV knows only the first part of the prophesy! Snape may have just started at Hogwarts or is about to and Dumbledore knows that he is a former death eater who has turned spy. It is possible that LV thought that he was positioning Snape at Hogwarts to spy on DD. DD can use Snape, probably with Snape's full knowledge, to feed the information to LV. Snape, in accordance with the plan, tells LV only the first part of the prophecy. He knows that by doing so, he sets in motion LV's downfall. This is why DD trusts him - what better proof can there be that he is no longer a supporter of LV than by becoming the instrument of his downfall. Snape would also be in perfect position to pass on information without arousing suspicion - if he is working at Hogwarts it is not at all extraordinary that he overheard the prophecy - there is no reason why LV would not believe him. DD would certainly remember the ancient magic that saved Harry, he probably counted on it. In fact, Lilly and James could have been in on the plan, they knew that they would have to die to save Harry in order to enable LV's eventual defeat. DD would also suspect that LV would not remember about this ancient magic - he said that LV always despised it and ignored it to his own disadvantage. Therefore DD knew how Harry could have power that LV "knows not of". Basically, the theory is that DD, with Snape's assistance set in motion a chain of events that he knew was the only way to bring about LV's downfall and in the process he sacrificed James and Lilly (possibly with their knowledge/consent). Naturally, he would not tell this to Harry - one could only imagine what his reaction would be if he found out. From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 22:23:05 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:23:05 -0000 Subject: James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90009 Carol wrote: If it had been McGonagall or Dumbledore who made that initial remark, I would trust it, but Hagrid is not given to precision. There's also the apparent fact that both James and Sirius hate the Dark Arts (associated with Slytherin) and are chiefly characterized by a kind ofreckless courage, a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin trait. So in the absence of other evidence, I'm inclined to trust that image of James as a Gryffindor quidditch player. It's the closest thing we have to solid evidence at the moment. (There's also Lupin's support of Gryffindor in quidditch, somewhere in PoA.) Hitomi: I'm with Carol. And we know from interviews that Lily was a Gryffindor, and Slytherins don't seem inclined to be attracted by anything in that house. Gryffindor just makes the most sense ("Godric's Hollow"). And also, JKR does go over the movie scripts, and the first film put James in Gryffindor, though they also made him a seeker... stupid movie. Oh well, it's worth thinking about. But until we have conclusive evidence, we're safer assuming the Marauders wore the colors of red and gold. The rest is just theory, at the moment. Besides, Peter seems to be the exception to the rule in most aspects. Weak DE, but the one who brought LV back to power; probably a Gryffindor, but one who turned, etc. And I always viewed Hagrid's comment as stating that Slytherins usually always go bad, not ONLY Slytherins go bad. That's my opinion, anyway. I'm sure there have been bad eggs in Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, too. ~ Hitomi, who prefers to believe the Marauders were in Gryffindor, but who is open to the idea that they were not From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 20:29:10 2004 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:29:10 -0000 Subject: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > Carol wrote: > Then there are the events of the next three years, during which > McGonagall is absent and Tom is busy creating a diary, getting > Hagrid expelled, and committing four murders. He comes back to > Hogwarts as a supposedly model Head Boy, but McGonagall by our > time frame doesn't see him in that role. And then he disappears on > his adventures in transfiguration and the Dark Arts. IMO, there's > no room in the story for a marriage to McGonagall, and nothing in > Tom's character that would suggest a romantic interest in her or > anyone else. > > Carol, who is more curious about whether Tom Riddle was a secret > disciple of Grindelwald during his years at Hogwarts Whizbang here: I'm inclined to agree that a Riddle / McG relationship doesn't seem likely. I do wonder if McG is related somehow to Hermione, though, perhaps by marriage. As for Riddle, you have all probably discussed this repeatedly in the past, but we don't hear of many wizards by only one name. What if Grindelwald's first name was Marvolo. Whizbang From japanesesearcher at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 22:16:12 2004 From: japanesesearcher at yahoo.com (Hitomi) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:16:12 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90011 Hitomi wrote: I see those archetypes most predominantly in old forms of literature, especially European. More modern fantasy and science fiction has mostly dropped them, and I'll go out on a limb and say Rowling's appeal is probably her mixture of both. Frost wrote: ... Ok, I am really and very strongly disagreeing with you here. Mostly because I've been reading some books by authors about how they write Fantasy, and listened to a couple of them, and .. my god. They have lists of the archetypes the "must" be in the story for it to be a fantasy. You have to have the mentor, the hero, the strong female character, the weak female character, the good thief/ honorable rascal, etc. And you can find it in almost every fantasy there is. (that is my own opinion.) Fantasy writing is so bonded to the old myths and the influence of Tolkien that it is hard to break away from the archetypes. Which is very disappointing for me, since I do love fantasy, but I'm finding that it lacks the intellectual stimulation I need, in general. There are some that break that (Harry Potter, and Gregory Maguire's rewritings of the old fairytales (and new ones too) are examples of that) but... *sighs* the archetypes are there, and we've added modern-archetypes. Hitomi now: Hey again Frost! I think you and I are defining fantasy (as in conventional vs. non) differently. When I was thinking of modern fantasy, I kept going back to works like Neil Gaiman's, who is totally and completely off the wall, and doesn't hold to traditional standards, or categories, at all. Most of his short stories, and especially his novel "American Gods" are bizarre. (Try reading "Neverwhere." You might like it, just be ready for the abstract.) I agree with what you're saying, that fantasy that sticks to the confines of, shall we say, the "Tolkien-like-epic," have to have archetypes. I just think a lot of modern writers have broken away from that. But I also think of cross-genre series, like Terry Brooks' "Nest Freemark" works (which is his best break-away work, even though he copied of Tolkien for the "Shannara" series), or Pullman's "Dark Materials" trilogy for another example of children's books, Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels. Stuff I read ages ago, but comes to mind. A lot of it mixes with science fiction, theology, and traditional forms of basic literature. You should try reading Orson Scott Card's "Enchantment," you'd probably enjoy it. But again, I totally agree, in the traditional fantastical-context, you have to have archetypes. That's why I like a lot of Eastern folk tales, especially of Orient descent. They usually hold to different rules, far different from the usual Western influence. Oh, and when I was talking about old European works, I kept thinking of "Morte Darthur," "Utopia," Jonathan Swift's works (which is mostly satire, but still), I'm sure you get the idea. Anyway, I agree completely that JKR doesn't think about archetypes when she writes. It's just what readers get out of it, and like to analyze, neh? :-) Hitomi wrote: No Harry is not perfect. But I always looked at a role-model as someone you admire for their imperfection as well as what little about them is good, considering we're talking that role- models are always human. I don't think Harry is put on a pedestal, but more admired for the fact that he is who he is, despite having been through what he has. Admired for being flawed, as well as "good." Someone you can see yourself as a lot of the time, in other words. Frost wrote: I agree with you, but I was responding to Dr. Zipes' rather... different POV. Hitomi now: Yes, he did rather place Harry upon a pedestal. Which I don't agree with, and which I know Rowling is not trying to do. She's trying to give us a normal teenage-boy hero. Anyway, I agree. Hitomi wrote: He wants to find the guilt in everyone concerning Sirius's death, because as far as Harry is concerned, it was still ultimately his own fault. His deep-seated guilt, resentment, as well as his feeling of enmity towards Snape is unreasonable. He's grieving. That's what people do when they grieve; the world is suddenly a terrible place to exist in. Frost wrote: Yes, very human, but not perfect, IE not what Dr. Zipes saw Harry as. Personally, I think that Harry is very wrong for choosing to blame Snape. I think it's going to be one of those things that will have a very large negative effect, and I look forward to seeing how it's played out. I hope that in the end he will forgive Snape (the forgiveness would be for him, since really, Snape probably doesn't feel like he's done anything to be forgiven for.). But I do think that such a selfish emotional response is in keeping with Harry's character. However, it is that emotional response that defies the archetype that Zipes tried to put Harry in, because of it's selfishness. Hitomi now: Yes, again I agree. Though I think Harry's selfishness is more than understandable, although, no, Snape didn't really do anything wrong (in this instance, at any rate), and Harry will have to let it go, at least eventually. Anyway, it makes their relationship more interesting, considering their mutual hatred is completely unreasonable. Though, I'm still not quite willing to trust Severus, yet. Don't know enough about him. And JKR has said to watch out for him, so I guess it's a matter of waiting, and seeing how this plays out. Anyway, back to the point, I think I just liked how JKR displayed the grieving process. People who are guilt-ridden and depressed, are by nature, selfish. I just want to see how Harry works through it, because he's not the type of person to be unreasonably biased without reason, and his bias towards Snape for Sirius's death is wrong. Hitomi wrote: I find it a bit cynical to say everyone might be at fault. No one was at fault for Sirius's death. It will just take Harry a long time to come to terms with that fact, especially with the circumstances surrounding Sirius's death. Frost wrote: And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that everyone (well, who was involved) was at fault and no one. There were a lot of things that a lot of people did wrong to lead up to his death. Sirius's death could have been avoided, but due to a lot of different actions, beliefs, and non-actions by different people, he was condemned to die. Its very realistic and very tragic, and at the same time, unavoidable. No one knew how their actions would spread their effects so far. Everyone did as they thought best. How could they know? You can't blame them, even though they are at fault. Well, you can, but... *shrugs* what's the point? Hitomi now: I think that's more how I view it. What's the point of placing blame, when even if one person had not made the choice they did, Sirius would still have probably died. Placing blame on everyone, I think, is just a bit too negative for me. People pass on when it's their time, and Sirius's death was a good death. Things happened the way they did, and you have to move on from it, you know? Hitomi wrote: I'll disagree with that, in I think there is a morality play. JKR herself has said the main theme is good vs. evil, that these are very moral books. I think I just view it as Rowling has molded the archetypes to her own design, while keeping her characters, her antagonists and her heroes, as completely and totally human. Frost wrote: Well, in the face of a quote from JKR herself, I'll consent to the morality play thing (though I was thinking more along the lines of the simplistic story of the The Third Shepherds Play.). I just think that the complexity of the moral questions being posed take it beyond that of a morality play. As for the archetypes, I don't think JKR is using them, in that she isn't setting people up as an archetypes or collection of archetypes. It's just that the characters unavoidably hold similarities to the archetypes due to a long history of story. Hitomi now: You're right. A lot of the morality questions do take it beyond that, again breaking away from the archetype, neh? ;) I, too, highly doubt JKR sits down and thinks about what literary tools she's going to use. She's just writing her story, and of course, we as readers, are going to nit-pick it, analyze it, and write ridiculous, and not-so-ridiculous, theories and conclusions on it. Oh well. It's fun to do, anyway. Hope everyone has a great weekend! Ja ne! ~ Hitomi From silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net Sat Jan 31 14:29:50 2004 From: silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net (Silverthorne Dragon) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:29:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP References: <200006051922.01853.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: <003901c3e806$af8b5de0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90012 {Silmariel} But Tom knows how to charm people, and I know a personal case of a boy that at 14 was told by one of the proffesors that 17 year old girls were too old for him, because he happened to charm them too easily, he just knew how to do it, so that age gap doesn't represent a problem to me in the special case. I admit this boy is very intelligent, but Tom also was, wasn't him {Anne} 'Charming' does not immediately equate with dating though. Children 'charm' people all the time--from parents to teachers--to get what they want, if they have that particular skill. And you can bet that it DOESN'T include kissing, dating, etc. in that case. What it DOES include is convincing the person being charmed that the charmer is sweet, cute, intelligent, or whatever enough so that the one being charmed wants to do something for the person...so although I COULD see Tom 'charming' McGonagall if they were in school together (perhaps by compliments and hinting that she is so intelligent so he goes to her all the time for answers), in order to get something from her, I don't see it being as a 'dating' boyfriend-girlfriend kind of thing. Probably more along the lines of cleverly manipulating her into things he needs her to do to help his cause along...a 'weapon' wholly different in type from the :"oh, I love you, can you do this thing for me?" gambit... Just a centaur or two's worth... Anne (Silverthorne) From d.marchel at comcast.net Sat Jan 31 14:05:09 2004 From: d.marchel at comcast.net (Dysis) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:05:09 -0000 Subject: OOP weather Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90013 I have been re-reading OOP, and have noticed something that annoys me very much. In the beginning of the book, we learn that there is a severe drought. It is so hot that the people in Little Whinging cannot turn on their sprinklers or waste any water. This "no sprinkler" rule is emphasized in the news report that Harry overhears. Okay, so we learn that there has been no water for a while and that the heat is unbearable. When Harry is on the Hogwart's Express, he notices some rain clouds gathering in the distance. Later, when he gets off the train, Harry notices the Thestrals. Their breath forms mist in the chilly night air. In the first week of the school year, it rains profusely. Every time Harry looks outside, it's drizzling. Even Ron notices this. So what's the deal? How come there is such a drastic change in weather? True, the months are different (the drought takes place in June/July while the rain is in September). But September isn't all that cold. Something is not clicking here. JKR mentions the weather a lot in this book. I became annoyed with the constant reference to the rainy weather. She obviously wants to draw our attention to it. I don't have any solid theories about this yet, but could it be LV? Maybe he's demonstrating his new powers. Or maybe it could be some wizards who were tired of the constant heat. They're not very good theories, I know, but I still have to work on them. Any ideas about this? ~Dysis From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 31 15:18:33 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:18:33 -0000 Subject: OOP weather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dysis" wrote: Dysis: > In the first week of the school year, it rains profusely. Every > time Harry looks outside, it's drizzling. Even Ron notices this. So > what's the deal? How come there is such a drastic change in weather? > True, the months are different (the drought takes place in June/July > while the rain is in September). But September isn't all that cold. > Something is not clicking here. JKR mentions the weather a lot in > this book. I became annoyed with the constant reference to the rainy > weather. Geoff: You ought to know that constant reference to the weather is a staple of UK conversation. :-) It's not,uncommon that when we get a long spell of dry weather, it then suiddenly goes pear shaped. Last year, we had a long, dry summer and unusually it went on, at least in our are, right into November. Decmeber turned out to be quite changeable. We had a lot of rain and we had a lot of non- descript days, i.e. with low cloud, dull but dry. So the weather in OOTP does not strike me as unusual. Also remember that the weather difference between the South and the Highlands of Scotland can be very marked. The Highlands have a much higher annual average rainfall that somewhere like Surrey. So, Hogwarts can be wet.... take your brollies, folks. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jan 31 15:32:31 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:32:31 -0000 Subject: OOP weather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90015 Dysis: > I have been re-reading OOP, and have noticed something that annoys > me very much. In the beginning of the book, we learn that there is > a severe drought. > > When Harry is on the Hogwart's Express, he notices some rain > clouds gathering in the distance. Later, when he gets off the > train, Harry notices the Thestrals. Their breath forms mist in the > chilly night air. In the first week of the school year, it rains > profusely. Every time Harry looks outside, it's drizzling. Even > Ron notices this. So what's the deal? How come there is such a drastic change in weather? > Any ideas about this? Basically - welcome to Britain! We don't *have* a climate. We have weather. I agree that the weather in OOP is probably symbolic of Harry's inner state, with the drought of the summer followed only by the misery of endless cold rain. But it is most certainly not an impossible sequence for British weather. Nothing is impossible for British weather - in living memory, it has snowed in June. In living memory, we've also had droughts in June. We have warm winter days. We have freezing winter days. Last week we had a blizzard strong enough that I couldn't see an office block ten minutes walk from where I live, today it's well above freezing. Frankly, I don't think LV would bother to try affecting British weather. No one would notice in the slightest, unless he actually caused a rain of frogs. And even that would probably just be a topic for interesting conversation. ('Rotten weather today, isn't it?' 'I'll say. I was scraping bloomin' frogs off my windscreen.' 'Wonder what caused that?' 'Small tornado, probably. Didn't they have one in Bournemouth last year?') Pip!Squeak From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 16:10:22 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:10:22 -0000 Subject: The Scapegoat Archetype (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90017 > Frost wrote: > ... Ok, I am really and very strongly disagreeing with you > here. Mostly because I've been reading some books by authors about > how they write Fantasy, and listened to a couple of them, and .. my > god. They have lists of the archetypes the "must" be in the story > for it to be a fantasy. You have to have the mentor, the hero, the > strong female character, the weak female character, the good thief/ > honorable rascal, etc. And you can find it in almost every fantasy > there is. (that is my own opinion.) > > Fantasy writing is so bonded to the old myths and the influence of > Tolkien that it is hard to break away from the archetypes. Which is > very disappointing for me, since I do love fantasy, but I'm finding > that it lacks the intellectual stimulation I need, in general. There > are some that break that (Harry Potter, and > Gregory Maguire's rewritings of the old fairytales (and new ones > too) are examples of that) but... *sighs* the archetypes are there, > and we've added modern-archetypes. > > Hitomi now: > Hey again Frost! I think you and I are defining fantasy (as in > conventional vs. non) differently. When I was thinking of modern > fantasy, I kept going back to works like Neil Gaiman's, who is > totally and completely off the wall, and doesn't hold to > traditional standards, or categories, at all. <> Frost: Umm. Actually the books I mentioned have been written within the last ten years. I am thinking of modern fantasy. I want to write it, though not the way that I`m being told by everyone else how to write it. I'm working off m study of current fantasy authors. Some are good, even with the "limitations" they put on fantasy. Some are even better because they break those limitations. As for Gaiman he's another one. If you like Neverwhere, try reading his Sandman Comics. !!!! *sighs* Dream is so... dreamy. ;) But really, THERE is a total decimation of an archetype, putting the hero on a reverse course, from "god-likeness" to humanity. But I still think that he and JKR are in the minority, and are known for their amazing transformations of a genera. Giaman took comic books and made one of the great Modern Myths. JKR has taken children's literature and fantasy into a whole new level of intellectual appreciation. (Something that Tolkien never did. (he just was able to popularize fantasy. I may be a "heretic" but I think he's just an ok writer with a good story. And don't get me started on his dialogues. >_< ever tried to read them out loud? ouch.)) I mentioned Gregory McGuire because his re-writes of commonly known myths are astounding. I'll never watch the Wizard of OZ the same again. (Actually, I'm now a fan of Elpheba. Go "wicked Witch" of the West!) But the archetypes still pervade most of the modern writers. Michelle West's The Sunsword. Terry Pratchet's Disc World. (The Dumber they are, the harder to kill.) (Though, Small Gods is inspiring) Stephan Lawhead, Kristen Brintain, George R.R. Martin, L. E. Modesitt Jr. The archetypes are there and they are used, and rather heavily. I don't think they are always used intentionally, though I know they are in several cases. But Fantasy relies, even with modern writers, rather heavily on archetypes. Hitome: > I just think a lot of modern writers have > broken away from that. But I also think of cross-genre series, like > Terry Brooks' "Nest Freemark" works (which is his best break-away > work, even though he copied of Tolkien for the "Shannara" series), > or Pullman's "Dark Materials" trilogy for another example of > children's books, Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels. Stuff I read ages > ago, but comes to mind. A lot of it mixes with science fiction, > theology, and traditional forms of basic literature. You should try > reading Orson Scott Card's "Enchantment," you'd probably enjoy it. >> Ok. Can't talk about Terry Brooks, as I never really got into him. Orson Scott Card does a good job, but he still has the "child-genius" who grows up to be the "mentor" figure. And not to mention, that is Sci-fi. Sci-fi has it's own problems. And Pern... Ok, I'm working form memory here, so I'm not going to be able to give a complete list, but... Main female character (with the big 'ol queen dragon) is your "strong female character." Then there are a couple of "weak" female characters, including that one with the long hair who gets her queen killed. Master Harper is your "Good rascal" for the adults, and when you start with Menolly's stories... well, they're everywhere in there. Which isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the Pern Series. I absolutely loved them, and Menolly was a favorite as a young teen, but... They are there. Look at Star Wars. (that IS a fantasy. Not Sci-fi.) Look at Dune. (from which two thirds of Star wars was stolen) I guess, in the end, we will be able to apply the archetypes to JKR's works, but I still really enjoy how varied and complex her characters are. She didn't start out to write a fantasy, it just happened. She's not in control of her archetypes, she's ignoring them, and letting them be what they are without categorizing them and pushing them into that sort of mold. I just feel that saying that she is using archetypes is inaccurate. From frost_indri at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 17:19:18 2004 From: frost_indri at yahoo.com (frost_indri) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:19:18 -0000 Subject: Snape (Was: How is Snape doing it) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90018 "Berit Jakobsen" > wrote: > > > > Well, the thing is that there's quite strong evidence in canon for > > Voldemort knowing Snape is a traitor. His statement at the end of > > GoF: "One, who I believe has left me for ever ... he will be killed > > of course" (p.565 UK Ed) seems to apply to Snape. > Alshain: > My theory on the subject, which I embrace with a fervor akin to the > believers in Vampire!Snape and the lone voice calling in the > wilderness, is that Voldemort thinks that *Snape* is the coward and > that *Karkaroff* has left him forever. The argument hinges on the IMO > extremely reasonable assumption that we as readers know more about > Snape than Voldemort does. People point out that Snape isn't a coward > and has turned spy at great personal risk, and so on. We know that. > Voldemort might not. Finding out that Snape is skilled in Occlumency > and stands a fairer chance than most in lying to Voldemort clinched > the matter even further. > Frost: Actually, I agree. That was what I worked out. It made the most sense to me. Karkoff ran for the hills while Snape stood, and went back for more...erm... punishment. If Snape is sucessful at lying to LV, which this route assumes that he is, then it would make sense for Snape to be seen as "cowerdly" for not coming back because he was afriad to be discovered, afraid that the Dark Lord would be so pissed at him for not coming to him in the woods, to rescue him, for not realizing how he was inhibiting his master from the Philosopher's stone and then finding out after the fact, etc. No matter what, Snape has a whole load of pain coming to him from LV. However, there is the fact that JKR seems to want us to believe that. Its the hints that are dropped everywhere. So the extremely suspiciouse part of me (dare I say paranoid?) thinks that it could be a red herring, after all, who the exact people are are not mentioned. In fact, he could have been refering to two completely different people. Some people weren't talked to in the circle, some empty spaces were just passed over. We just assume that its two ex- Death Eaters that we know. Frost From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 17:34:35 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:34:35 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Song of the Tebo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90019 The Song of the Tebo To the tune of Veggie Tales' The Song of the Cebu Lyrics can be found here: http://www.hamienet.com/lyrics83449.html A MIDI is here: http://www.julia4christ.org/index_music2.htm Dedicated - of course! to Ginger (the Maven who does *everything*) THE SCENE: Potions' Dungeon. For extra credit, NEVILLE is giving an oral presentation with a few Audio-Visual aids HERMIONE (spoken): Ladies and gentlemen, fellow students! Neville Longbottom presents a musical, electronic, multi-magical extravaganza: The Song of the Tebo! NEVILLE (music): Tebo! (With an antiquated slide projector - powered by a 500-mile extension cord - NEVILLE begins showing a series of slides on a bedsheet hanging in midair ? he is apparently alone in every photo) (spoken, with musical accompaniment) This is a song about a boy ... A song about a wizard boy and his Tebo ... A song about a wizard boy and his three Tebos ... The wizard boy who had a red Tebo .a blue Tebo .and an orange Tebo .And also a Longhorn. (NEVILLE is momentarily flustered by a series of slides unrelated to his presentation) Um ... um ... this is a picture of me at St. Mungo's .This is my Great-Uncle Algernon .This is me standing up to Crabbe .And this is me fighting both Crabbe and Goyle. CHORUS OF GRYFFINDORS: (with admiration) Ohh! NEVILLE: This is me after fighting Crabbe and Goyle CHORUS: (shocked) Ahh! NEVILLE: This is me getting out of Madam Pomfrey's six weeks after fighting Crabbe and Goyle ... I think that's Crabbe's cousin. He's a Fire Crab! SNAPE: Hold it! You call this a multi-magical extravaganza? This is a Muggle slide projector and a bed sheet! And where on earth are the Tebos, anyway? NEVILLE: They're invisible. See? SNAPE: (momentary silence) Yes. Well, very good. This is against my better judgment, but carry on! (The Song Proper now begins) NEVILLE: (music) Tebo! (spoken, to CHORUS) Sing it with me! (music) Tebo! CHORUS: Tebo! NEVILLE: Boy is looking for Tebo CHORUS: Boy is looking for Tebo NEVILLE: And he searches high and low CHORUS: And he searches high and low NEVILLE: Red Tebo is going from Zaire, to Togo go, to Togo go to Togo go, to Togo go go go go CHORUS: To Togo go, To Togo go, To Togo go, To Togo go, To Togo go, To Togo go go go NEVILLE: Longhorn giving big bellow CHORUS: Longhorn giving big bellow NEVILLE: Can't see boy or three Tebos CHORUS: Can't see boy or three Tebos NEVILLE: Big Longhorn is roaring and calling, Goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro fro fro CHORUS: Goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro, goes to and fro fro fro NEVILLE: Tebo! CHORUS: Tebo! NEVILLE: Tebo! CHORUS: Tebo! NEVILLE & CHORUS: Oh, woe, you know, oh, woe, you know, oh, woe, you know, oh, woe, you know, oh, woe, you know, oh, woe, you know, Tebo! NEVILLE: Longhorn eat the red Tebo CHORUS: Longhorn eat the red Tebo NEVILLE: Wash it down with nice Bordeaux CHORUS: Wash it down with nice Bordeaux NEVILLE: Strong Longhorn is eating and drinking. Mmm-mmm mmm mmm, mmm-mmm mmmmmm, mmm-mmm mmm mmm, mmm-mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm CHORUS: Mmm-mmm mmm mmm, mmm-mmm mmm mmm, mmm-mmmmmm mmm, mmm-mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm (Slide projector suddenly melts. Musical accompaniment stops.) NEVILLE: (spoken) Uh-oh. SNAPE: (spoken, caught up in the story in spite of himself) Well! What happens next? NEVILLE: Um ... SNAPE: Why did the Tebos leave Zaire for Togo? What is a Romanian Longhorn doing in West Africa? Doesn't the Longhorn have to able to *see* the Tebo in order to eat it? How did the other two Tebos escape? How can you know what color a Tebo is when they're invisible? Where did the dragon get its Bordeaux? And what, Mr. Longbottom, are you doing on the African continent fooling around with highly dangerous "Five-X" Beasts? You can't just give a presentation like this based on an imaginary narrative! I'm going to have to speak to your Head of House about this. NEVILLE: But wait ? I've still the "show and tell" part, with my highly trained Tebo. (music, calling out) Tebo! CHORUS: Tebo! (A huge reptilian foot crashes through the ceiling. Music again stops.) NEVILLE (spoken): No, wait ...that's the Longhorn. (SNAPE & CHORUS flee in panic) NEVILLE & LONGHORN (music) No more song about Tebo! Everybody want to go! Audience is fleeing and screaming, and so no show, and so no show, and so no show, and no no no no show ORANGE TEBO (suddenly materializing, spoken): I told you we shoulda done this in the greenhouse! NEVILLE: I don't know, I just can't see it. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 31 18:02:59 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:02:59 -0000 Subject: What was Mrs. Weasley Thinking? In-Reply-To: <401BB0BA.31730.2BFD70@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: >> I don't think she forgets Ginny - Ginny isn't old enough to be a prefect yet - her statement could mean 'so far' or she could be confident for some reason that Ginny will be a prefect. Fred and George, though, are old enough - and they in the room with her. Yes, a mother with a large group of kids can occasionally forget something, sure - but to actually totally forget two of them exist...<< I think JKR is illustrating denial. And since denial is a subconscious process, it doesn't matter that the Twins were right in front of her. Molly wants to think that all of her children are Prefect material, and the inconvenient fact that two of them were not, though as conspicuous as the proverbial elephant in the living room, simply escaped her. That's my take on it, anyway. Pippin From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 18:21:28 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:21:28 -0000 Subject: OOP weather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dysis" wrote: > I have been re-reading OOP, and have noticed something that annoys > me very much. In the beginning of the book, we learn that there is a > severe drought. It is so hot that the people in Little Whinging > cannot turn on their sprinklers or waste any water. This "no > sprinkler" rule is emphasized in the news report that Harry > overhears. Okay, so we learn that there has been no water for a > while and that the heat is unbearable. > > When Harry is on the Hogwart's Express, he notices some rain clouds > gathering in the distance. Later, when he gets off the train, Harry > notices the Thestrals. Their breath forms mist in the chilly night > air. In the first week of the school year, it rains profusely. Every > time Harry looks outside, it's drizzling. Even Ron notices this. So > what's the deal? How come there is such a drastic change in weather? > True, the months are different (the drought takes place in June/July > while the rain is in September). But September isn't all that cold. > Something is not clicking here. JKR mentions the weather a lot in > this book. I became annoyed with the constant reference to the rainy > weather. She obviously wants to draw our attention to it. I don't > have any solid theories about this yet, but could it be LV? Maybe > he's demonstrating his new powers. Or maybe it could be some wizards > who were tired of the constant heat. They're not very good theories, > I know, but I still have to work on them. Any ideas about this? > > ~Dysis "K" Sorry for not snipping but I wanted to leave in all the examples about the weather. I do believe there is a reason why we hear about the weather in *all* the books. Do I think it's only because that's how the weather is over there? Is that the only reason JKR mentions the weather so much? There's something or someone behind the weather changes. Personally I believe it's Voldemort. It's those vampiric abilities he has. I know I'm always saying I don't have time to elaborate but it's true. I just had to put my 2 cents in on this subject. "K" From fredwaldrop at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 19:20:12 2004 From: fredwaldrop at yahoo.com (Fred Waldrop) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:20:12 -0000 Subject: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90022 spang: And yes as the original post said( didn't have the time to dig it up sorry), it is not right to say that those who were covered in the stinksap were the ones who didn't suffer extensive damage. Because you see, Luna wasn't covered in the first place because she had raised her book. So that's it then. ===================================================================== Hello all, Fred Waldrop here; (chap. 10, page 187 US, page 170 UK, OotP) "Liquid squid squirted from every boil on the plant; thick, stinking dark green jets of it. They hit the ceiling, the windows, and splattered Luna Lovegood's magazine; Ginny, who had flung her arms up in front of her face just in time, merely looked as though she was wearing a slimy green hat". Ok, I know we are talking about opinion here, but how big do you think a magazine is? I, for one, have not seen one that is so big it will cover the entire body, but that is me. If you want to claim it was a WW magizine, and is therefore larger than others, and take the part written " and splattered Luna Lovegood's magazine", literately as meaning her magazine, AND ONLY her magazine, I wonder what your take is on "Ginny, who had flung her arms up in front of her face just in time, merely looked as though she was wearing a slimy green hat"? Do you think she only got stink sap on her head or possibly on other parts of her that was not covered by her arms? Me personally, I think Luna got Stink sap on her legs, her hands (they were holding the paper after all), and possible, seeing that the stink sap splashed off the ceiling, on top of her head. Fred From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 19:30:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:30:29 -0000 Subject: Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90023 Hi! You know, after OoP I won't be surprised if your theory will turn out to be true. I believe Dumbledore to be capable of anything now. But if you are correct, I also think that Dumbledore deserves to die slow and painful death right now. :o) Politics are dirty, fight against the evil powerful wizard can't be bloodless, unfortunately, but I believe that there is always a line, which even a leader in a war can't cross, or he will be no different than Voldemort. I think that consciously allowing Voldie to kill James and Lily will be that line. Considering the fact that JKR once called Dumbledore "epithome of goodness" (more like an example of extreme stupidity, if you ask me :o)), I doubt that he did that. I am more in agreement with Melclaros' theory that Snape was the one, who overheard the complete prophecy and told it all to Voldie, setting the said chain of events in motion. I also think that when he changed sides , he confessed to Dumbledore, but they were unable to save Potters. If it is true, I still can't wait for Harry's reaction. If it is true, I am sure that Severus does feel guilty about it and I really want Harry at least once to taunt him, regardless whether he decides later to forgive him or not. ( I actually think he will, eventually) As I said though, I think it is very possible that you are correct. Alla From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 19:38:11 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:38:11 -0000 Subject: secret garden In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90024 <<>> The Sergeant Majorette says In the book, which JKR is more likely to have referred to, Colin is the son of a slightly hunchbacked man named Archibald whose beuatiful wife fell in love with him despite his handicap. A branch she was sitting on while she was pregnant broke; she gave birth prematurely and died in childbirth. Archie becomes a cranky recluse. He locks up the garden and hires a bunch of nurses and nannies to care for his supposedly delicate son. A girl Colin's age whose parents died of cholera in India becomes Archibald's charge. (These two kids are like two little Dracos butting heads.) The other "friend" is the brother of a chambermaid whose mother is a Molly Weasley type. The reason the kid is kept under wraps is that he looks exactly like his mother, and looking at him gives his father grief and guilt. There's a similar problem with "The Little Princess", by the same author. The director of "Prisoner of Azkaban" directed a version which, although beautifully done, completely altered the underlying meaning of the story. A little off-topic, maybe, but if we are comparing HP to older children's classics, we have to go back to the source... --JDR From entropymail at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 20:09:09 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:09:09 -0000 Subject: Hey! Yew! In-Reply-To: <20040131005829.44409.qmail@web11509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meghan Chalmers-McDonald wrote: > So all the talk about EIHWAZ made me curiouse. I looked it up. SOme places it looked more like a bit of lightning than others, so... meh... But then you read that it is the symbol for the "Yew tree." > > I was just reading Voldimort's rebirth sceen when I noticed, this: > > "They were standing instead in a sark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible beuond a large yew tree to their right." (OoP, US HB, p.636) > > This seemingly innocent detail is mentioned several times, down to it's leaves, in the telling of Voldimort's rebirth. > > I am as of yet, uncertain what these things could mean. The first thing that come to mind is that this is confirmation that IF the symbol on Harry's head is eiwhaz, then it is very likely that the mark is from the wand that Voldemort held, and not from Lily. In addition, I think we should keep an eye out for eiwhaz and yew, since they seem to hold an importance, and possibly beyond the scar. > > Any ideas? I love this stuff! Okay, this is what I have been able to divine: 1) Yew trees are evergreens, and can live for an incredibly long time (2,000 or more). The yew tree is held sacred by the Druids; it symbolizes death and rebirth. Because its branches grow into the ground, when the central trunk dies, the tree lives on and the branches become new trees. The yew tree also symbolizes transformation, great age, and reincarnation. (This seems to have a lot to do with Dumbledore. He obviously has an intimate understanding of immortality/reincarnation/death, as demonstrated by his collaboration with Nicholas Flamel on the philospher's/sorcerer's stone and his connection with Fawkes and phoenixes, which are known for their long lives and rebirth. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that Harry must in some way be Dumbledore's successor *reincarnate*, if not literally, then figuritively.) 2) Yew holds and conducts energy very well. It is believed to be a good shield for magical energies: magic that directly hits the wood is reflected. (Of course, this correlates in a big way with Harry and Voldemort's meeting at Godric's Hollow. For whatever reason, Voldemort's curse was reflected off of Harry and back onto V.) Harry may have some yew-related protection, either provided by that lightning bolt scar of his (if it actually came from Voldemort), or by some of the ancient magic Lily provided before her death (in that case, the lightning bolt is not really a lightning bolt, but a rune). Or, perhaps Harry *is* the yew tree. In a symbolic sort of way, of course. :: Entropy :: From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Sat Jan 31 21:17:29 2004 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (Tracy Hunt) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:17:29 -0000 Subject: Hey! Yew! In-Reply-To: <20040131005829.44409.qmail@web11509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90026 wrote: > Frost: > > Ok, sorry for the bad pun, but they are my specialty. > > So all the talk about EIHWAZ made me curiouse. I looked it up. SOme places it looked more like a bit of lightning than others, so... meh... But then you read that it is the symbol for the "Yew tree." now Tcy: I knew this all sounded a little familiar...so I did a search and I was right...there was a thread (back in December, 2003) and some follow-up posts that you might want to check out: Berit started it with: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85551 and the thread continues with contributions by tigerpatronus, udderpendragon and justcarol67 Then, Bohcoo picks it up again with: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87238 and the thread continues with contributions by granaiogirl, ghinghapuss, jdr0928, drednort and madamessnape. ...happy hunting, Tcy (who loves it when her memory actually works) From grahadh at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 22:41:33 2004 From: grahadh at yahoo.com (grahadh) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:41:33 -0000 Subject: Hey! Yew! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Hunt" wrote: > wrote: > > Frost: > > > > Ok, sorry for the bad pun, but they are my specialty. > > > > So all the talk about EIHWAZ made me curiouse. I looked it up. > SOme places it looked more like a bit of lightning than others, so... > meh... But then you read that it is the symbol for the "Yew tree." > > > > now Tcy: > I knew this all sounded a little familiar...so I did a search and I > was right...there was a thread (back in December, 2003) and some > follow-up posts that you might want to check out: > Berit started it with: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85551 > and the thread continues with contributions by tigerpatronus, > udderpendragon and justcarol67 > Then, Bohcoo picks it up again with: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87238 > and the thread continues with contributions by granaiogirl, > ghinghapuss, jdr0928, drednort and madamessnape. > ...happy hunting, > Tcy > (who loves it when her memory actually works) Now Dhyana: I did a google search for more information about runes and wood and found some interesting infomation that I haven't found mentioned in all the great information given about about Holly and Yew (though it may have been and I wasn't able to find the post). That is that they are considered complimentary in meaning to one another to makers of runes. Yew: masculine -aggressive -victory -conquest -strength of will -invincibility -the hunter Holly: feminine -mercy -love -compassion -lifegiver -creation -new life -regeneration Another point of interest I found very illuminating is that each rune is associated with a stone , a flower, and a tree. The only rune that I found associated with Holly was mannaz, which means cooperation, collective skills, humanity, and the commongood. -Dhyana From president0084 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 15:09:46 2004 From: president0084 at yahoo.com (president0084) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:09:46 -0000 Subject: OOP weather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 90033 Its called pathetic Fallacy. A fallacy of reason in suggesting that nonhuman phenomena act from human feelings. In Harry's case the weather is mirroring his feeling. Also the weather is a device that is used to create suspense. i.e. in the morning starts of very sunny but has raid clouds in the distance normally implies that the protagonist is going to get bad news or something bad is going to happen. The drought can be explained away by the fact that surrey is in the South of England which normally has draught over the summer. Scotland (Hogwarts)is in the very north of the island hence generally colder. From bumbledor at charter.net Sat Jan 31 21:36:48 2004 From: bumbledor at charter.net (Bumbledor) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:36:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall? References: Message-ID: <000501c3e842$54ea1b60$6601a8c0@mac> No: HPFGUIDX 90034 "dumbledore11214": > I am more in agreement with Melclaros' theory that Snape was the one, > who overheard the complete prophecy Ah, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Dumbledore state that someone was listening but did not hear the ENTIRE thing? AKA they only got HALF of it? I just listened to the book again.. and I could swear that is what happened.